It was never the resposibility of the US government to bail out poor countries. The UN can decide to do this if they want to, but it's not the responsibility of the US.
I see, so human rights is jurisdictional. Hmm guess we shouldn't have sent relief supplies to Indonesia after the tsunamis, since that is of course the responsibility of Asian countries. The US is responsible, because it is rich. Columbia isn't singled out about not doing enough in the Congo. That is the no-win situation, do nothing and the US looks arrogant and unhelpful on human rights, try to do something and it's meddling in the affairs of other nations.
Tsunami victims can bail themselves out much like Katrina victims did. I don't see your point. If we don't bail out victims of hurricanes in this country, why should we worry about Asian countries? We obviously arent good at bailing ourselves out, so why would any country call on America to bail them out?
Yes because all black people, understand the political climate of Congo... doesn't matter if they grew up in Texas, they are black, so they should know. US policy continues to be, ask nicely, and cry about thing at the UN. You are so damn naive. Actually the person who is running for President and who will likely be elected in the Congo is American with a degree from Harvard. Harvard Doctor, the future of Congo. Please do your research BEFORE you post about the Congo. I'm not saying blacks in America know everything there is to know about the Congo, what I'm saying is that blacks in America can run the government of the Congo, aid with intelligence, and keep the country stablized. There are more than enough educated blacks in America to solve the Congo problem, and thats the only way it can ever be solved. It's not going to be solved if you try to educate the Congo, you have to bring the educated people into the Congo to build the government and train folks. You act like it's never been done before, but thats how it always works. If we want Congo to be a friend of America, the Congo needs a connection with blacks in America. This is just common sense.
Maybe I wasn't clear. When I said those most impacted, I was referring to the hopelessly poor and desperate, who don't stand up. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Che Guevara were all from relatively prosperous familites (middle or upper-middle class), That is just ridiculous. Martin Luther King was a PREACHER, theres no way in hell he came from a rich or even a middle class family as a PREACHER in the south. Ghandi, he wasnt rich either. I don't know how you can call these people rich, Martin Luther King was the on the lowest economic ladder in America, during a time when there was segregation and everything else. Even if you do not agree with what Martin Luther King stood for or what he did, you must admit he had balls, he was brave.
People with no food actually do speak up, you just don't listen. There are africans speaking up all the time, don't you listen to any rap music? Don't you read books? There are many many writers, artists, musicians,who have no money and who are literally starving, but who do speak up. We might not agree with what they have to say, but you have to admit that most artists arent rich, they are poor. The people in Africa who are starving have voices if you care to listen, but most people don't really want to hear it. There are movies about Rwanda, there are many people speaking abuot genocide in Darfur, and you are telling me that no ones speaking up?
You are correct, many people who speak up are college educated, that is true. You are correct, in order to be a revolutionary, you need an education, or at least access to books. The reason there are not a lot of revolutionaries today is not because people arent educated, people are more educated today than every before. The reason there arent any third world revolutionaries today is because, it's not
I'm not trying to call you a lunatic anymore than you are trying to call me one, but if you think misery happens all by itself, well I guess you believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, and little grey men.
You are ranting and raving all over this thread against things that no one else sees because THEY DO NOT EXIST. Ok take that for what it is.
Okay, whatever you say, misery does not exist. We all are happy and enjoy our suffering.
The United States did not invent the "ghetto".
Okay, we invented the "urban" ghetto. Sure ghettos in some form always exist but we created the word "urban" and "inner city" to exclusively make certain parts of cities into the "official" ghetto. That is something America DID invent. So we did not invent poverty, or the word ghetto, but the current concept of a ghetto, you know, the urban concrete jungle, with the projects and liqour stores all over the place, that was invented here. Accept American history.
As for eliminating misery not being concern thats pure nonsense. Humans all over the world today live longer and more healthier lives than their ancesetors in the past. We have more material posessions, better health care and less worry about basic needs such as food, shelter and safety. Yes there are still regional wars in some parts of the world but there hasn't been a World War in over 50 years. You also assume that making people work less would automatically make them happier. A lot of people enjoy their jobs and only hate working because they are working at jobs they don't like. Not many people want to sit at home all day everyday. That would get boring fast.
Let's see now, more humans are dying of disaase than in any time in history. HIV, heart disease, cancer, mad cow disease, avian flu, diabetes, and this is just to name a few. Now I admit, those diseases don't kill people instantly anymore like the spanish flu or the black plague, but not much has changed. We have managed to create a health industry, which profits off making you sick and then profits again off treating that sickness. So yes we might live longer if we can afford medicine, but surprise, the majority of the world cannot afford medicine.
Yes I can tell you with a straight face that the world is poor and starving to death because we have yet figure out how to get those countries to form stable governments. There is no lack of food, there is however a lack of infrastructure and stable governments in the starving nations. While I am sure there are some evil individuals out there but as a whole no humanity does not want people to starve. I think your mental illness is the cause for your nihilism. There's just no logic behind it at all. We can't invite Africa into the WTO until they get their act together. Humans aren't socialists. We need there to be something in it for us to do something. Thats not evil. Its just the way it is and it works out very well. The capitalist system allows for ridiculously high standards of living, socialist utopian systems allow for ridiculously low standards of living. I know which one I prefer.
Okay, so we seem to believe that Africa is poor as a continent because some of the countries on that continent do not have stable governments. So explain to me why China, which was communist is becoming rich? How about India? The middle east? Latin America has had a stable government for a while, why arent we trading with Mexico, it's a lot closer than China, makes a lot of sense on paper, would save in fuel and transportation costs, and would slow illegal immigration. So why is Mexico so poor while China is so rich?
Trade policy has nothing to do with stability of governments. Yes there are governments in Africa that are not our friends, but there are governments in Africa that are our friends and have been for a long time. I'm not talking about Somalia, I'm talking about Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, even Egypt. There are plenty of third world countries, which we could be trading with right now even if si
What should the UN, Europe, and the US do about Congo? Let's see, how about we ask the only black senator Barack Obama what we should do about the Congo? Also since when did the UN, NATO or the US have a responsibility to do anything for the Congo? The African Union has that responsibility. Secondly, we have plenty of blacks in America who know exactly what to do about the Congo, but no one really listens and does anything about ghettos in America so why would the Congo matter?
We make those decisions everyday. We decide through voting who is in power. We decide if human rights is more or less important than having a cool pair of shoes. Sometimes we play dumb and keep our eyes closed to what's going on, but in the end we are the ones who make those decisions.
We voted and we got exactly what we wanted. What point are you trying to make? Yes it's a democracy, but it doesnt matter who you vote for, because the agenda is the same no matter who is elected. So we vote on individuals, not on agendas.
Typically it isn't the victims who stand up, those most impacted by human rights vilations, are more worried about survival than getting the message out. The media, celebrities, and the rich are in fact the ones who spread the message about human rights abuses. Unfortunately, we tend to focus on the few negatives, than the overall positives.
This is equal to saying that Bono did more for human rights than Martin Luther King or Ghandi. I don't understand your point. Jesus Christ was not rich either, he was poor. The founders of this country who created the bill of rights, the constitution, the declaration of independence were not rich, and were not kings in Europe. I just do not see where in history, did the rich stand up to defend the poor, I'd love to see you cite some records, but as far as I've seen things, women, gays, blacks, citizens in general, always stood up for themselves. No one was ever given anything, not even the right to vote was guarenteed until people fought to win those rights.
You are ruthlessly optimistic. The weak are almost never defended by the strong, and the strong almost always hate the weak. There are exceptions, there always are, but history does not lie.
Yes I agree that global morality has improved, but it's not improving in the places that matter. So the third world is highlighting human rights abuses? So people in ghettos are highlighting human rights? There have always been moral people in this world, there has always been men and women in the third world, in ghettos, in the working class, in the middle class, and upper class who have morality. The problem is that, it's not simply a matter of numbers. If 5 out of 6 billion people are moral, but just a few thousand or million very important people are immoral, thats all it really takes.
So you are right, the world believes there are human rights. Does the average CEO? Does the average leader? Human rights only exist if the police, judges, CEOs and other decision makers say it exists. If they say human rights do not exist, human rights do not exist. Not everyone agreed with slavery, but you know, without slavery how would America have been built? Today a lot of people disagree with human rights abuses, but how can you have a war without human rights abuses? So in a way, it's always the decision makers who decide for us what official morality is.
You and I, we may have our personal morality, but the official morality is decided by our leaders, not by us. We can discuss our morality in the church, in the classroom, on Slashdot, but really it has nothing to do with how society is setup. Human rights, or any rights, only exist when they can be defended, and the only country on earth capable of defending them is this country. The leaders of this country decide if human rights are worth defending or not, and thats how it has always been since forever. If the leaders of this country decide they want to take us back into a monarchy, then so be it. If the leaders of this country decide on a new set of rights, so be it. We are the workers, we go to work, we pay taxes, but we don't make decisions of this sort.
So it's not that the world is immoral right now, I see a lot of people standing up for human rights, more than any other time in history, but it's a matter of which people are standing up? I'm seeing mostly the victims standing up. I'm not seeing important, powerful, or rich people in mass standing up to defend human rights. You can have a billion poor people stand up for human rights and it changes nothing. You could have 2 billion, 3 billion, 4 billion, all stand up and it changes nothing.
I don't understand your reasoning. We went to the moon in the 1960's. We spend 300-400 billion a year on defense. Eliminating misery has never been a concern, not ever, there is no evidence of it in history, not even in this country. Let's see, we are in the country that created the "ghetto", that created "segregation", that didn't allow women to vote, that works longer and harder with less vacations than any other country on the planet, with both some of the richest and poorest people living next to each other in the same country.
If our goal were to decrease world misery, shouldnt we start by reducing the workday? extending the weekend? reducing the work day to a 4 hour a day maximum, or adding friday as part of a 3 day weekend would do a lot to reduce world misery. I think everyone on this website would want to work less hours so they can spend more time with their families, friends, or doing things they enjoy. Instead we are working more hours than any other country. So don't tell me we don't know how to eliminate world misery when we are creating our own environment. We are the ones who want to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, with almost no vacation time, and we don't even have a reason to be doing it.
We know how to prevent the miserable conditions, and we WANT people to be miserable. Can you with a straight face, tell me or anyone that the third world is this poor and starving to death when the third world is mostly farming land, rainforest, and has all the gold, oil and diamonds on the planet? Starvation only exists because we want people to starve. Poverty only exists because we want or need people to be poor. Ghettos only exist because we create them. It's not like these situations formed by accident, just read the history books.
The solution? We can work for quality of life, we can work for happiness, we can work to reduce misery, and it does not take a lot, just a simply change in priority. First we have to love ourselves and care about how we feel. Once we care about how we feel, then we can care about how other people such as our neighbors feel, and yes we could have a better environment for everyone if we worked to improve it. Sadly, we are working to increase misery. We have not even invited Africa, perhaps one of the largest continents on earth into the WTO, despite the fact that we get oil, gold, diamonds and other natural resources from countries, we go out of our way to avoid trade. This is why countries are poor, it's a matter of trade, and if there are sanctions, or debt it makes countries artificially poor forever.
So I don't understand your point, it's not difficult to be rational. I assume you are rational and you want to work hard today so you can work less hard tomorrow. You'd like to have robots doing most of the work so we can all work 4 hours a day. Hell you'd like to globalize the economy so we can all work 4 hours a day even sooner, but guess what, we have a globalized economy now, and we still work 8 hours a day, and now it takes 2 incomes to survive.
Can you prove that evolution is not God? Can you prove anything you just said? What if I say science is God? Then will you stop believing in science just because I changed the name of it to God?
Most Athiests dislike the word "God". There is no rationality or logic to it, it's just dislike for the word. Rename the word to "Evolution", or to "Chaos" or "Randomness" or "Accident" and then they can believe that we have a random accidently chaos generated universe. So chaos becomes God.
Athiests have a God too, Darwin is only one theory of evolution, I'm not saying that evolution isnt real, but why is there only one theory of evolution if we are to take it as a legit science? Since when did we present just one mans hypothesis for something as complex and deep as evolution? Darwin had many theories, some of them have been proven right, and some are just wild speculation. Survival of the fittest, wild speculation, because there is no definition of fittest, and fittest could just mean lucky. So survival of the lucky is in my opinion not really based on fact, or evidence, it's just a way to fill in the gaps as to why some species survive longer than others.
What is most fit? Whoever survives. Who survives? Sometimes the unfit survive and the species dies out. Sometimes the fit survive and the species continues to evolve, but it's far more complicated than Darwin makes it seem. Natural selection? There is no natural selection, evolution is always guided by intelligent and conscious selection. Humans evolved intelligence because intelligent people could communicate better with each other, due to language. It had nothing to do with intelligences aiding with survival, thats speculation. Often the most intelligent humans are the least likely to survive because language skills did not mean you'd have the physical skills or the killer instinct. Warriors often were less intelligent, but through brute force would take over an area, rape all the women, and kill most or all of the men. You can't say they were more intelligent, just more violent and aggressive, so aggression became a survival trait. Now we are at a point where, theres no need for that sort of aggression, we have technology, we have laws, we have sophisticated civilization, so now even with no rational or logical reason we fight each other for the fun of it, just being aggressive for the sake of aggression. Can we say it helps us evolve faster? Not really.
So there is no way to define fittest, but in the human species fittest is whoever is most aggressive. In other species fittest might be something completely different, the bees and insects work in group mind, they have way more discipline, their concept of fittest is not the same as ours. The aggressive mouse which goes around biting cats might not have much success, so aggressioon only works when intelligent people support it with technology.
I'm never disputing the science of evolution. I'm disputing the fact that the "theory" of evolution isnt fully proven. It's part speculation and part science. The science part, we know about genetics, we know about DNA, we know over time evolution does take place. We do not know why, we just know how. Science never explains why, and Darwin's "why" is as much his spiritual belief as saying "God" intelligently designed it. Really survival of the fittest is not some proven law of nature, many species were more fit than us, which we wiped out into extinction in our own process of going extinct, so it's never as simple as "might makes right", or "survival of the fittest". If an Astroid hit, then a lot of the species would survive, and we'd be the least fit to handle it. We can't even handle pollution, we can't even protect our habitat, we are fit for self destruction. So in our case who actually wants to be the fittest if it's only the road to being fit for extinction?
You are right, there might be people, humans, who are fit, and who could save the species from going extinct, but based on how we choose to define fittest, whoever is the best at
Suicide only increases misery in most cases. Also if theres a hell, suicide only increases the likelyhood of going there. So it's not much of an escape, I'd say drug-use beats suicide because it removes misery also.
But you are right, most people are commiting suicide, look at the world. There are plenty of people who die saving lives, who die protecting the country, and who die with honor every day. Then there are people who just, die in the most irresponsible way they can think of. If you want a death with honor,join the military and fight in the war. If you want to die protecting your friends and family,become a cop. Die trying to save lives, or trying to make the world better, otherwise suicide is in my opinion simply fear of life. Is life miserable for most people? Yes. Does that mean we should collectively stop living? No. Or at least I don't think so.
I think however I'm outnumbered here, so there will be plenty who would rather end the world than fight to save it. Ending life is always easier than saving it.
The basic premise is that we are destroying the future. I'm sure some animals will survive. I'm sure we will be replaced by the next great species to become intelligent, but our time is clearly up. The Dinosaurs had a finite timespan, they ruled planet earth for millions of years. Humans also seem to have a finite time span. The reason we have a finite time span is because we WANT to go extinct.
As much as I can tell people that our collective actions are driving us into extinction, if thats what people are wanting, the only thing I can do about it is invest in it and try to profit from the end times. It's not that I'm naturally cynical, but humanity does not care about itself, so why not get rich on that? I'm sure thats what the majority of people are thinking, at least those who are poor and not in a position to do anything. What can you do? The best you can do is invest in oil, tabacco and other obviously profitable companies, the bet is that the future will always be worse than today, that racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty and other symptoms will only increase and intensify. The only thing you can do is bank on it.
You are right, we are about to hit the ground, the option is to hit the gruond into a pot of gold, or hit the ground onto a pit of spikes. This civilization is just not sustainable. The only way it could be sustainable is if we actually worked for a better future, a higher quality of life, and once a for all we globalize the economy, for real. It's not going to happen in my lifetime folks, and it looks like we are in the final human lifetime considering the technology.
Pollution is one problem, we could go extinct just by pollution alone. If we have no clean air, no clean food, no clean water, it doesnt matter how much money you have, it doesnt matter how hard you work, nothing you do will save your children, UNLESS decide now that the future is worth saving, and that takes work. I think most humans think short term, they want to win the now, at the cost of the future. You can win the now, but if theres no future, you only win greater misery and chaos. I'm convinced that a group of humans, or a country, will eventually win control of the now, and in the end it wont matter because there won't be a world left to control, and there might not be many people either, or animals, or plants.
This is why people on both sides are fighting over nothing. If someone wants to believe in God, they will, and science just proves it, including evolution. If someone does not want there to be a God, they will look for evidence to prove God doesnt exist, and it's usually the same scientific evidence used to prove God does exist. It's up to the interpreter.
In my opinion, if you believe evolution is God, you believe in God just like the person who believes an old man in the sky created Adam and Eve, both theories are equally suspicious to any open minded individual as both Darwin and Jesus base their beliefs on personal assumptions. Jesus assumped God is good and loving, Darwin assumed God is the fittest. It doesnt matter because both are right and wrong at the same time. God is good and evil, fit and unfit, depending on the version of God we get and want. We can have the accidental God of Darwin but it does not change the fact that evolution did happen, and that we DO control it, even if just by who we choose to mate with, it is a conscious decision and we arent machines. We can have the deliberate God, in which an old man designed our DNA which programmed us to choose certain mates and guide evolution. The result is still the same.
The alternative is that all human life could be wiped out. It could be a plague, but it depends on the plague. Some plagues are so dangerous they could wipe out all life on the planet. I'm sure you've heard of the grey goo problem by now.
If we did not want diabetes to appear, we would cure it. Diabetes is profitable, so we want it. Having diabetes increases world misery, it's profitable, and we don't care about health or aging. So why would we cure anything?
I'm sure there are some individuals here who do want cures for diabetes, cancer, and other diseases, and I'm sure these diseases could be cured if we wanted to cure them. It's a matter of will, if we put hundreds of billions into it, it would be cured.
Well, lets just say the world is so miserable that we are afraid to calculate it. We are afraid to even ask the question. We are afraid to even care about how we feel, how people in the third world feel, or how our children will feel. The world is miserable, how many of us like going to work for 8 hours when we could just as easily be working 4 hours a day? How many of us like to fight for food, water, clean air, and good health when we could all have these things?
Imagine being born in the third world, and having to fight your way into America or Europe, only to further fight your way into the middle class out of the ghettos, and further fight your way out of the middle class into the upper class, and even if you somehow through pure genius, talent or luck make it from the poorest village to the highest tower, it doesnt matter because by this time the scales have changed and your money is worth less. You see, you'd think those who work their way to the top would be the ones who would want to protect the ability to continue to do this, but it's usually not like this because once you get to the top it's very difficult to stay there. The middle class will eventually cease to exist, robots will eventually replace most workers, as will outsourcing, at best if you make up from the poorest village to the highest tower, you just want to have enough security to stay there.
Do we live on a miserable planet? Yes, the majority on planet earth are miserable simply because the lower you are on the food chain, the more you have to fight to survive. Just getting to the top of the food chain doesnt solve your problems, with more money brings more problems. Just being rich does not make you immune to the rest of the world because it's not really money that matters, it's positioning. Some people will be rich forever simply because of what they own. Some people are rich right now and could lose it all on a bad bet. And to get rich, from the bottom up, takes a lifetime of sacrifice.
It's simple, if you have a low ethical IQ, and you are irrational/very emotional, then there can be conflicts. Look at people around you, who are the most violent and dangerous types? The emotional irrational unethical types, right?
The problem with IQ is, we have no ethics IQ test. We also don't do a good job teaching people to be rational. You can be a genius but if you are an irrational genius, you'll make the sort of emotional quick short term decisions that will harm the long term future. If you are irrational you only harm your future self, and thats the key.
So here is the question for you, if we live in a world filled with people who like to increase world misery, who like to be irrational, and who don't care about the future, what can you do? People in this world WANT more misery, thats why there is more. People in this world WANT pain, poverty, misery, inequality, etc. Why? Because they crave these things, for whatever irrational reason, but this is what people want. Do all people want this? No, there are always a few who don't, but those few arent in a position to make decisions or do anything about it. So we get what we want in the end, it's Democracy.
The only thing that matters is how miserable we are, and how long we live. We live longer, but we work to increase world misery, not decrease it. To be blunt, we don't care about human emotions, we care only about making a quick $ and nothing else. It's not about lifespan, IQ, or anything relative to the future. It's just about controlling the present.
What we really want as humans, are shorter, more miserable lifespans. The only way to have this is to keep doing exactly what we are doing. Yes we did increase the lifespan with modern medicine, at the same time we increased misery levels to the highest they have ever been in history.
Inequality is higher than ever globally. While slavery has been abolished, starvation and poverty has been increased. While the world is more educated, we are also brilliant suicide artists, constructing the tools and devices of our own extinction.
We have a few options.
1. We can continue to increase world misery while decreasing the human lifespan.
2. We can somehow change human nature so that we stop craving misery and short lifespans and aim for life extention and quality of life.
3. We go extinct.
There might be more options, but these are the most obvious. The world is just a manifestation of our collective thoughts. We ultimately get exactly what we want, and we want misery and shortened lifespans because we don't like long healthy and happy lives. It's all simple.
So to be honest, our ancestors didnt have it so bad. Yes you could live a short miserable life back then, but back then if you had a high enough IQ and good health, there was a chance you could live a long slightly less miserable life. In otherwords we go through cycles, and right now misery is cherished.
It starts with leadership, the top makes the decisions for the consumers. Yes it could change, but it will take a critical mass of leadership at the top to change it.
Look, if it were this simple, people would be driving hybrid cars. People would be investing in alternative energy. People would be investing a lot differently, but until we can get people to buy hybrid cars you cannot get people to invest in alternative fuels and thus you have a never ending cycle. Even the corporate laws prevent corporations from acting ethical. Corporations are sociopaths, and when you deal with them you have to become a corporation yourself just to get paid.
Enough Enron's, and people might actually become ethical investors. I don't think anyone was happy about Enron, ethical or not, if you lost all your money you are going to be pissed.
Investing is about survival, not ethics. If you look at the people who are poor, the majority have ethics, and so what? They are poor, so no one cares about them. Are you helping starving ethical kids in Africa? No. So if you have ethics, help other people who have ethics, or shut up about ethics and invest to profit, but make up your mind. You will have a difficult time trying to be an ethical investor.
Also, Germany was not "Hitler's" Germany. Every country goes through phases of being ethical and unethical depending on which corporations and individuals have control. Hitler may not have been the most unethical man in Germany, he was just the face of the German machine. Hitler had to get his support from somewhere, like banks, and groundtroops, and all those who were involved in pumping Hitler up. Why was Hitler pumped up? Because obviously it was the profitable thing to do, and it could cause the most misery at the same time.
The problem is, ethical corporations arent usually good at winning because unethical corporations will do anything to win, anything to make a profit, and this is why profits are guarenteed. Ethical corporations in theory could have guarenteed profits, but it would take support and loyalty among ethical consumers, and we don't have that. Consumers are not rational enough to support ethical corporations, they arent intelligent enough to know the difference, and they just want to save money by shopping at Walmart.
The result is, ethics don't matter, it's all about money. Make your money or die, leave the ethics to the poor and people in the third world, because the market is unethical. Ultimately you have to adapt to the marketplace, and if there are no ethics, or if all the money is given to unethical corporations, then you invest in unethical corporations, and until ethical corporations win loyalty from ethical consumers it will never change.
I'm all for ethical investing, I say hedge your bets, but if i had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the obviously profitable unethical corporations. Ethical people do not run the most successful corporations, they do not run the most successful businesses. The world is run by unethical people, and ethical people are in third world countries starving, and in ghettos, and trailer parks, and generally the ones who recieve the majority of the misery. What does this teach you?
Lets see, if you train a dog by hitting the dog whenever it acts ethical, eventually the dog learns that in order to feel less pain, it has to act unethical, just enuogh to not be hit all the time. I have ethics, but when it comes to investments there are no ethics, and how I feel has nothing to do with decisions on making money. I wish I could profit from ethical companies, but the damn ignorant consumers keep shopping at the most unethical places imaginable. Consumers arent changing and investers simple take advantage of the stupidity of consumers who blindly buy based on brand names.
go to Alonovo Alonovo is a website which deals with edcuating consumers, it's a start, but it's also cultural. We choose the most driven people as leaders in our society, not the most ethical. It's also the way society is set up, a poor kid in Africa or South America may be the most ethical individual on the planet, so ethical that they'd die of poverty and starvation trying to feed their village, while the least ethical person in the village might be the person who gets rich off everyon else, rises out of poverty, and comes to America to ruthlessly profit. Until we actually value ethics in economic ways, ethics have no value to society, maybe only in the church does ethics have any value.
If you havent figured it out by now, America has no conscience, capitalism has no conscience, corporations have no conscience, only individuals do, and this has nothing to do with making money.
If your goal is to make money, make money, and express your conscience somewhere else. It's not that investing means you are sponsoring these people, because these people will exist and express themselves through other means even if you don't invest in them. Basically if we don't invest, they'd steal. The point is, they will get the money no matter what you say or do, so why not get rich with them?
There are options, but if you want the world to have a conscience, then people with a conscience should learn to profit from having a conscience. Otherwise you don't choose how we profit or the environment we survive in.
I'm not trying to make people depessed, I just don't think we can afford to hide from reality much longer. Eventually reality will hit you in the face, so you can either learn about it little by little, or face it all at once in the future.
actually no I'm serious. Vice is the secret to profit. Haliburton is making an absolute fortune, as are oil companies and all the industries I mentioned. I suggest people check out vice fund.
Slashdot Mirror
It was never the resposibility of the US government to bail out poor countries. The UN can decide to do this if they want to, but it's not the responsibility of the US.
,who have no money and who are literally starving, but who do speak up. We might not agree with what they have to say, but you have to admit that most artists arent rich, they are poor. The people in Africa who are starving have voices if you care to listen, but most people don't really want to hear it. There are movies about Rwanda, there are many people speaking abuot genocide in Darfur, and you are telling me that no ones speaking up?
I see, so human rights is jurisdictional. Hmm guess we shouldn't have sent relief supplies to Indonesia after the tsunamis, since that is of course the responsibility of Asian countries. The US is responsible, because it is rich. Columbia isn't singled out about not doing enough in the Congo. That is the no-win situation, do nothing and the US looks arrogant and unhelpful on human rights, try to do something and it's meddling in the affairs of other nations.
Tsunami victims can bail themselves out much like Katrina victims did. I don't see your point. If we don't bail out victims of hurricanes in this country, why should we worry about Asian countries? We obviously arent good at bailing ourselves out, so why would any country call on America to bail them out?
Yes because all black people, understand the political climate of Congo... doesn't matter if they grew up in Texas, they are black, so they should know.
US policy continues to be, ask nicely, and cry about thing at the UN. You are so damn naive. Actually the person who is running for President and who will likely be elected in the Congo is American with a degree from Harvard. Harvard Doctor, the future of Congo. Please do your research BEFORE you post about the Congo. I'm not saying blacks in America know everything there is to know about the Congo, what I'm saying is that blacks in America can run the government of the Congo, aid with intelligence, and keep the country stablized. There are more than enough educated blacks in America to solve the Congo problem, and thats the only way it can ever be solved. It's not going to be solved if you try to educate the Congo, you have to bring the educated people into the Congo to build the government and train folks. You act like it's never been done before, but thats how it always works. If we want Congo to be a friend of America, the Congo needs a connection with blacks in America. This is just common sense.
Maybe I wasn't clear. When I said those most impacted, I was referring to the hopelessly poor and desperate, who don't stand up. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Che Guevara were all from relatively prosperous familites (middle or upper-middle class),
That is just ridiculous. Martin Luther King was a PREACHER, theres no way in hell he came from a rich or even a middle class family as a PREACHER in the south. Ghandi, he wasnt rich either. I don't know how you can call these people rich, Martin Luther King was the on the lowest economic ladder in America, during a time when there was segregation and everything else. Even if you do not agree with what Martin Luther King stood for or what he did, you must admit he had balls, he was brave.
People with no food actually do speak up, you just don't listen. There are africans speaking up all the time, don't you listen to any rap music? Don't you read books? There are many many writers, artists, musicians
You are correct, many people who speak up are college educated, that is true. You are correct, in order to be a revolutionary, you need an education, or at least access to books. The reason there are not a lot of revolutionaries today is not because people arent educated, people are more educated today than every before. The reason there arent any third world revolutionaries today is because, it's not
I'm not trying to call you a lunatic anymore than you are trying to call me one, but if you think misery happens all by itself, well I guess you believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, and little grey men.
You are ranting and raving all over this thread against things that no one else sees because THEY DO NOT EXIST. Ok take that for what it is.
Okay, whatever you say, misery does not exist. We all are happy and enjoy our suffering.
The United States did not invent the "ghetto".
Okay, we invented the "urban" ghetto. Sure ghettos in some form always exist but we created the word "urban" and "inner city" to exclusively make certain parts of cities into the "official" ghetto. That is something America DID invent. So we did not invent poverty, or the word ghetto, but the current concept of a ghetto, you know, the urban concrete jungle, with the projects and liqour stores all over the place, that was invented here. Accept American history.
As for eliminating misery not being concern thats pure nonsense. Humans all over the world today live longer and more healthier lives than their ancesetors in the past. We have more material posessions, better health care and less worry about basic needs such as food, shelter and safety. Yes there are still regional wars in some parts of the world but there hasn't been a World War in over 50 years. You also assume that making people work less would automatically make them happier. A lot of people enjoy their jobs and only hate working because they are working at jobs they don't like. Not many people want to sit at home all day everyday. That would get boring fast.
Let's see now, more humans are dying of disaase than in any time in history. HIV, heart disease, cancer, mad cow disease, avian flu, diabetes, and this is just to name a few. Now I admit, those diseases don't kill people instantly anymore like the spanish flu or the black plague, but not much has changed. We have managed to create a health industry, which profits off making you sick and then profits again off treating that sickness. So yes we might live longer if we can afford medicine, but surprise, the majority of the world cannot afford medicine.
Yes I can tell you with a straight face that the world is poor and starving to death because we have yet figure out how to get those countries to form stable governments. There is no lack of food, there is however a lack of infrastructure and stable governments in the starving nations. While I am sure there are some evil individuals out there but as a whole no humanity does not want people to starve. I think your mental illness is the cause for your nihilism. There's just no logic behind it at all. We can't invite Africa into the WTO until they get their act together. Humans aren't socialists. We need there to be something in it for us to do something. Thats not evil. Its just the way it is and it works out very well. The capitalist system allows for ridiculously high standards of living, socialist utopian systems allow for ridiculously low standards of living. I know which one I prefer.
Okay, so we seem to believe that Africa is poor as a continent because some of the countries on that continent do not have stable governments. So explain to me why China, which was communist is becoming rich? How about India? The middle east? Latin America has had a stable government for a while, why arent we trading with Mexico, it's a lot closer than China, makes a lot of sense on paper, would save in fuel and transportation costs, and would slow illegal immigration. So why is Mexico so poor while China is so rich?
Trade policy has nothing to do with stability of governments. Yes there are governments in Africa that are not our friends, but there are governments in Africa that are our friends and have been for a long time. I'm not talking about Somalia, I'm talking about Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, even Egypt. There are plenty of third world countries, which we could be trading with right now even if si
What should the UN, Europe, and the US do about Congo? Let's see, how about we ask the only black senator Barack Obama what we should do about the Congo? Also since when did the UN, NATO or the US have a responsibility to do anything for the Congo? The African Union has that responsibility. Secondly, we have plenty of blacks in America who know exactly what to do about the Congo, but no one really listens and does anything about ghettos in America so why would the Congo matter?
We make those decisions everyday. We decide through voting who is in power. We decide if human rights is more or less important than having a cool pair of shoes. Sometimes we play dumb and keep our eyes closed to what's going on, but in the end we are the ones who make those decisions.
We voted and we got exactly what we wanted. What point are you trying to make? Yes it's a democracy, but it doesnt matter who you vote for, because the agenda is the same no matter who is elected. So we vote on individuals, not on agendas.
Typically it isn't the victims who stand up, those most impacted by human rights vilations, are more worried about survival than getting the message out. The media, celebrities, and the rich are in fact the ones who spread the message about human rights abuses. Unfortunately, we tend to focus on the few negatives, than the overall positives.
This is equal to saying that Bono did more for human rights than Martin Luther King or Ghandi. I don't understand your point. Jesus Christ was not rich either, he was poor. The founders of this country who created the bill of rights, the constitution, the declaration of independence were not rich, and were not kings in Europe. I just do not see where in history, did the rich stand up to defend the poor, I'd love to see you cite some records, but as far as I've seen things, women, gays, blacks, citizens in general, always stood up for themselves. No one was ever given anything, not even the right to vote was guarenteed until people fought to win those rights.
You are ruthlessly optimistic. The weak are almost never defended by the strong, and the strong almost always hate the weak. There are exceptions, there always are, but history does not lie.
Yes I agree that global morality has improved, but it's not improving in the places that matter. So the third world is highlighting human rights abuses? So people in ghettos are highlighting human rights? There have always been moral people in this world, there has always been men and women in the third world, in ghettos, in the working class, in the middle class, and upper class who have morality. The problem is that, it's not simply a matter of numbers. If 5 out of 6 billion people are moral, but just a few thousand or million very important people are immoral, thats all it really takes.
So you are right, the world believes there are human rights. Does the average CEO? Does the average leader? Human rights only exist if the police, judges, CEOs and other decision makers say it exists. If they say human rights do not exist, human rights do not exist. Not everyone agreed with slavery, but you know, without slavery how would America have been built? Today a lot of people disagree with human rights abuses, but how can you have a war without human rights abuses? So in a way, it's always the decision makers who decide for us what official morality is.
You and I, we may have our personal morality, but the official morality is decided by our leaders, not by us. We can discuss our morality in the church, in the classroom, on Slashdot, but really it has nothing to do with how society is setup. Human rights, or any rights, only exist when they can be defended, and the only country on earth capable of defending them is this country. The leaders of this country decide if human rights are worth defending or not, and thats how it has always been since forever. If the leaders of this country decide they want to take us back into a monarchy, then so be it. If the leaders of this country decide on a new set of rights, so be it. We are the workers, we go to work, we pay taxes, but we don't make decisions of this sort.
So it's not that the world is immoral right now, I see a lot of people standing up for human rights, more than any other time in history, but it's a matter of which people are standing up? I'm seeing mostly the victims standing up. I'm not seeing important, powerful, or rich people in mass standing up to defend human rights. You can have a billion poor people stand up for human rights and it changes nothing. You could have 2 billion, 3 billion, 4 billion, all stand up and it changes nothing.
I don't understand your reasoning. We went to the moon in the 1960's. We spend 300-400 billion a year on defense. Eliminating misery has never been a concern, not ever, there is no evidence of it in history, not even in this country. Let's see, we are in the country that created the "ghetto", that created "segregation", that didn't allow women to vote, that works longer and harder with less vacations than any other country on the planet, with both some of the richest and poorest people living next to each other in the same country.
If our goal were to decrease world misery, shouldnt we start by reducing the workday? extending the weekend? reducing the work day to a 4 hour a day maximum, or adding friday as part of a 3 day weekend would do a lot to reduce world misery. I think everyone on this website would want to work less hours so they can spend more time with their families, friends, or doing things they enjoy. Instead we are working more hours than any other country. So don't tell me we don't know how to eliminate world misery when we are creating our own environment. We are the ones who want to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, with almost no vacation time, and we don't even have a reason to be doing it.
We know how to prevent the miserable conditions, and we WANT people to be miserable. Can you with a straight face, tell me or anyone that the third world is this poor and starving to death when the third world is mostly farming land, rainforest, and has all the gold, oil and diamonds on the planet? Starvation only exists because we want people to starve. Poverty only exists because we want or need people to be poor. Ghettos only exist because we create them. It's not like these situations formed by accident, just read the history books.
The solution? We can work for quality of life, we can work for happiness, we can work to reduce misery, and it does not take a lot, just a simply change in priority. First we have to love ourselves and care about how we feel. Once we care about how we feel, then we can care about how other people such as our neighbors feel, and yes we could have a better environment for everyone if we worked to improve it. Sadly, we are working to increase misery. We have not even invited Africa, perhaps one of the largest continents on earth into the WTO, despite the fact that we get oil, gold, diamonds and other natural resources from countries, we go out of our way to avoid trade. This is why countries are poor, it's a matter of trade, and if there are sanctions, or debt it makes countries artificially poor forever.
So I don't understand your point, it's not difficult to be rational. I assume you are rational and you want to work hard today so you can work less hard tomorrow. You'd like to have robots doing most of the work so we can all work 4 hours a day. Hell you'd like to globalize the economy so we can all work 4 hours a day even sooner, but guess what, we have a globalized economy now, and we still work 8 hours a day, and now it takes 2 incomes to survive.
Can you prove that evolution is not God? Can you prove anything you just said? What if I say science is God? Then will you stop believing in science just because I changed the name of it to God?
Most Athiests dislike the word "God". There is no rationality or logic to it, it's just dislike for the word. Rename the word to "Evolution", or to "Chaos" or "Randomness" or "Accident" and then they can believe that we have a random accidently chaos generated universe. So chaos becomes God.
Athiests have a God too, Darwin is only one theory of evolution, I'm not saying that evolution isnt real, but why is there only one theory of evolution if we are to take it as a legit science? Since when did we present just one mans hypothesis for something as complex and deep as evolution? Darwin had many theories, some of them have been proven right, and some are just wild speculation. Survival of the fittest, wild speculation, because there is no definition of fittest, and fittest could just mean lucky. So survival of the lucky is in my opinion not really based on fact, or evidence, it's just a way to fill in the gaps as to why some species survive longer than others.
What is most fit? Whoever survives. Who survives? Sometimes the unfit survive and the species dies out. Sometimes the fit survive and the species continues to evolve, but it's far more complicated than Darwin makes it seem. Natural selection? There is no natural selection, evolution is always guided by intelligent and conscious selection. Humans evolved intelligence because intelligent people could communicate better with each other, due to language. It had nothing to do with intelligences aiding with survival, thats speculation. Often the most intelligent humans are the least likely to survive because language skills did not mean you'd have the physical skills or the killer instinct. Warriors often were less intelligent, but through brute force would take over an area, rape all the women, and kill most or all of the men. You can't say they were more intelligent, just more violent and aggressive, so aggression became a survival trait. Now we are at a point where, theres no need for that sort of aggression, we have technology, we have laws, we have sophisticated civilization, so now even with no rational or logical reason we fight each other for the fun of it, just being aggressive for the sake of aggression. Can we say it helps us evolve faster? Not really.
So there is no way to define fittest, but in the human species fittest is whoever is most aggressive. In other species fittest might be something completely different, the bees and insects work in group mind, they have way more discipline, their concept of fittest is not the same as ours. The aggressive mouse which goes around biting cats might not have much success, so aggressioon only works when intelligent people support it with technology.
I'm never disputing the science of evolution. I'm disputing the fact that the "theory" of evolution isnt fully proven. It's part speculation and part science. The science part, we know about genetics, we know about DNA, we know over time evolution does take place. We do not know why, we just know how. Science never explains why, and Darwin's "why" is as much his spiritual belief as saying "God" intelligently designed it. Really survival of the fittest is not some proven law of nature, many species were more fit than us, which we wiped out into extinction in our own process of going extinct, so it's never as simple as "might makes right", or "survival of the fittest". If an Astroid hit, then a lot of the species would survive, and we'd be the least fit to handle it. We can't even handle pollution, we can't even protect our habitat, we are fit for self destruction. So in our case who actually wants to be the fittest if it's only the road to being fit for extinction?
You are right, there might be people, humans, who are fit, and who could save the species from going extinct, but based on how we choose to define fittest, whoever is the best at
Suicide only increases misery in most cases. Also if theres a hell, suicide only increases the likelyhood of going there. So it's not much of an escape, I'd say drug-use beats suicide because it removes misery also.
But you are right, most people are commiting suicide, look at the world. There are plenty of people who die saving lives, who die protecting the country, and who die with honor every day. Then there are people who just, die in the most irresponsible way they can think of. If you want a death with honor,join the military and fight in the war. If you want to die protecting your friends and family,become a cop. Die trying to save lives, or trying to make the world better, otherwise suicide is in my opinion simply fear of life. Is life miserable for most people? Yes. Does that mean we should collectively stop living? No. Or at least I don't think so.
I think however I'm outnumbered here, so there will be plenty who would rather end the world than fight to save it. Ending life is always easier than saving it.
The basic premise is that we are destroying the future. I'm sure some animals will survive. I'm sure we will be replaced by the next great species to become intelligent, but our time is clearly up. The Dinosaurs had a finite timespan, they ruled planet earth for millions of years. Humans also seem to have a finite time span. The reason we have a finite time span is because we WANT to go extinct.
As much as I can tell people that our collective actions are driving us into extinction, if thats what people are wanting, the only thing I can do about it is invest in it and try to profit from the end times. It's not that I'm naturally cynical, but humanity does not care about itself, so why not get rich on that? I'm sure thats what the majority of people are thinking, at least those who are poor and not in a position to do anything. What can you do? The best you can do is invest in oil, tabacco and other obviously profitable companies, the bet is that the future will always be worse than today, that racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty and other symptoms will only increase and intensify. The only thing you can do is bank on it.
You are right, we are about to hit the ground, the option is to hit the gruond into a pot of gold, or hit the ground onto a pit of spikes. This civilization is just not sustainable. The only way it could be sustainable is if we actually worked for a better future, a higher quality of life, and once a for all we globalize the economy, for real. It's not going to happen in my lifetime folks, and it looks like we are in the final human lifetime considering the technology.
Pollution is one problem, we could go extinct just by pollution alone. If we have no clean air, no clean food, no clean water, it doesnt matter how much money you have, it doesnt matter how hard you work, nothing you do will save your children, UNLESS decide now that the future is worth saving, and that takes work. I think most humans think short term, they want to win the now, at the cost of the future. You can win the now, but if theres no future, you only win greater misery and chaos. I'm convinced that a group of humans, or a country, will eventually win control of the now, and in the end it wont matter because there won't be a world left to control, and there might not be many people either, or animals, or plants.
We have a choice here. Do we want to toil for the sake of toiling or do we actually have a reason?
This is why people on both sides are fighting over nothing. If someone wants to believe in God, they will, and science just proves it, including evolution. If someone does not want there to be a God, they will look for evidence to prove God doesnt exist, and it's usually the same scientific evidence used to prove God does exist. It's up to the interpreter.
In my opinion, if you believe evolution is God, you believe in God just like the person who believes an old man in the sky created Adam and Eve, both theories are equally suspicious to any open minded individual as both Darwin and Jesus base their beliefs on personal assumptions. Jesus assumped God is good and loving, Darwin assumed God is the fittest. It doesnt matter because both are right and wrong at the same time. God is good and evil, fit and unfit, depending on the version of God we get and want. We can have the accidental God of Darwin but it does not change the fact that evolution did happen, and that we DO control it, even if just by who we choose to mate with, it is a conscious decision and we arent machines. We can have the deliberate God, in which an old man designed our DNA which programmed us to choose certain mates and guide evolution. The result is still the same.
The alternative is that all human life could be wiped out. It could be a plague, but it depends on the plague. Some plagues are so dangerous they could wipe out all life on the planet. I'm sure you've heard of the grey goo problem by now.
If we did not want diabetes to appear, we would cure it. Diabetes is profitable, so we want it. Having diabetes increases world misery, it's profitable, and we don't care about health or aging. So why would we cure anything?
I'm sure there are some individuals here who do want cures for diabetes, cancer, and other diseases, and I'm sure these diseases could be cured if we wanted to cure them. It's a matter of will, if we put hundreds of billions into it, it would be cured.
Well, lets just say the world is so miserable that we are afraid to calculate it. We are afraid to even ask the question. We are afraid to even care about how we feel, how people in the third world feel, or how our children will feel. The world is miserable, how many of us like going to work for 8 hours when we could just as easily be working 4 hours a day? How many of us like to fight for food, water, clean air, and good health when we could all have these things?
Imagine being born in the third world, and having to fight your way into America or Europe, only to further fight your way into the middle class out of the ghettos, and further fight your way out of the middle class into the upper class, and even if you somehow through pure genius, talent or luck make it from the poorest village to the highest tower, it doesnt matter because by this time the scales have changed and your money is worth less. You see, you'd think those who work their way to the top would be the ones who would want to protect the ability to continue to do this, but it's usually not like this because once you get to the top it's very difficult to stay there. The middle class will eventually cease to exist, robots will eventually replace most workers, as will outsourcing, at best if you make up from the poorest village to the highest tower, you just want to have enough security to stay there.
Do we live on a miserable planet? Yes, the majority on planet earth are miserable simply because the lower you are on the food chain, the more you have to fight to survive. Just getting to the top of the food chain doesnt solve your problems, with more money brings more problems. Just being rich does not make you immune to the rest of the world because it's not really money that matters, it's positioning. Some people will be rich forever simply because of what they own. Some people are rich right now and could lose it all on a bad bet. And to get rich, from the bottom up, takes a lifetime of sacrifice.
It's simple, if you have a low ethical IQ, and you are irrational/very emotional, then there can be conflicts. Look at people around you, who are the most violent and dangerous types? The emotional irrational unethical types, right?
The problem with IQ is, we have no ethics IQ test. We also don't do a good job teaching people to be rational. You can be a genius but if you are an irrational genius, you'll make the sort of emotional quick short term decisions that will harm the long term future. If you are irrational you only harm your future self, and thats the key.
So here is the question for you, if we live in a world filled with people who like to increase world misery, who like to be irrational, and who don't care about the future, what can you do? People in this world WANT more misery, thats why there is more. People in this world WANT pain, poverty, misery, inequality, etc. Why? Because they crave these things, for whatever irrational reason, but this is what people want. Do all people want this? No, there are always a few who don't, but those few arent in a position to make decisions or do anything about it. So we get what we want in the end, it's Democracy.
having a high IQ means absolutely nothing if your ethical IQ is low.
The only thing that matters is how miserable we are, and how long we live.
We live longer, but we work to increase world misery, not decrease it. To be blunt, we don't care about human emotions, we care only about making a quick $ and nothing else. It's not about lifespan, IQ, or anything relative to the future. It's just about controlling the present.
What we really want as humans, are shorter, more miserable lifespans. The only way to have this is to keep doing exactly what we are doing. Yes we did increase the lifespan with modern medicine, at the same time we increased misery levels to the highest they have ever been in history.
Inequality is higher than ever globally. While slavery has been abolished, starvation and poverty has been increased. While the world is more educated, we are also brilliant suicide artists, constructing the tools and devices of our own extinction.
We have a few options.
1. We can continue to increase world misery while decreasing the human lifespan.
2. We can somehow change human nature so that we stop craving misery and short lifespans and aim for life extention and quality of life.
3. We go extinct.
There might be more options, but these are the most obvious. The world is just a manifestation of our collective thoughts. We ultimately get exactly what we want, and we want misery and shortened lifespans because we don't like long healthy and happy lives. It's all simple.
So to be honest, our ancestors didnt have it so bad. Yes you could live a short miserable life back then, but back then if you had a high enough IQ and good health, there was a chance you could live a long slightly less miserable life. In otherwords we go through cycles, and right now misery is cherished.
It starts with leadership, the top makes the decisions for the consumers. Yes it could change, but it will take a critical mass of leadership at the top to change it.
Look, if it were this simple, people would be driving hybrid cars. People would be investing in alternative energy. People would be investing a lot differently, but until we can get people to buy hybrid cars you cannot get people to invest in alternative fuels and thus you have a never ending cycle. Even the corporate laws prevent corporations from acting ethical. Corporations are sociopaths, and when you deal with them you have to become a corporation yourself just to get paid.
Enough Enron's, and people might actually become ethical investors. I don't think anyone was happy about Enron, ethical or not, if you lost all your money you are going to be pissed.
Investing is about survival, not ethics. If you look at the people who are poor, the majority have ethics, and so what? They are poor, so no one cares about them. Are you helping starving ethical kids in Africa? No. So if you have ethics, help other people who have ethics, or shut up about ethics and invest to profit, but make up your mind. You will have a difficult time trying to be an ethical investor.
Also, Germany was not "Hitler's" Germany. Every country goes through phases of being ethical and unethical depending on which corporations and individuals have control. Hitler may not have been the most unethical man in Germany, he was just the face of the German machine. Hitler had to get his support from somewhere, like banks, and groundtroops, and all those who were involved in pumping Hitler up. Why was Hitler pumped up? Because obviously it was the profitable thing to do, and it could cause the most misery at the same time.
The problem is, ethical corporations arent usually good at winning because unethical corporations will do anything to win, anything to make a profit, and this is why profits are guarenteed. Ethical corporations in theory could have guarenteed profits, but it would take support and loyalty among ethical consumers, and we don't have that. Consumers are not rational enough to support ethical corporations, they arent intelligent enough to know the difference, and they just want to save money by shopping at Walmart.
The result is, ethics don't matter, it's all about money. Make your money or die, leave the ethics to the poor and people in the third world, because the market is unethical. Ultimately you have to adapt to the marketplace, and if there are no ethics, or if all the money is given to unethical corporations, then you invest in unethical corporations, and until ethical corporations win loyalty from ethical consumers it will never change.
I'm all for ethical investing, I say hedge your bets, but if i had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the obviously profitable unethical corporations. Ethical people do not run the most successful corporations, they do not run the most successful businesses. The world is run by unethical people, and ethical people are in third world countries starving, and in ghettos, and trailer parks, and generally the ones who recieve the majority of the misery. What does this teach you?
Lets see, if you train a dog by hitting the dog whenever it acts ethical, eventually the dog learns that in order to feel less pain, it has to act unethical, just enuogh to not be hit all the time. I have ethics, but when it comes to investments there are no ethics, and how I feel has nothing to do with decisions on making money. I wish I could profit from ethical companies, but the damn ignorant consumers keep shopping at the most unethical places imaginable. Consumers arent changing and investers simple take advantage of the stupidity of consumers who blindly buy based on brand names.
go to Alonovo Alonovo is a website which deals with edcuating consumers, it's a start, but it's also cultural. We choose the most driven people as leaders in our society, not the most ethical. It's also the way society is set up, a poor kid in Africa or South America may be the most ethical individual on the planet, so ethical that they'd die of poverty and starvation trying to feed their village, while the least ethical person in the village might be the person who gets rich off everyon else, rises out of poverty, and comes to America to ruthlessly profit. Until we actually value ethics in economic ways, ethics have no value to society, maybe only in the church does ethics have any value.
If you havent figured it out by now, America has no conscience, capitalism has no conscience, corporations have no conscience, only individuals do, and this has nothing to do with making money.
If your goal is to make money, make money, and express your conscience somewhere else. It's not that investing means you are sponsoring these people, because these people will exist and express themselves through other means even if you don't invest in them. Basically if we don't invest, they'd steal. The point is, they will get the money no matter what you say or do, so why not get rich with them?
There are options, but if you want the world to have a conscience, then people with a conscience should learn to profit from having a conscience. Otherwise you don't choose how we profit or the environment we survive in.
I'm not trying to make people depessed, I just don't think we can afford to hide from reality much longer. Eventually reality will hit you in the face, so you can either learn about it little by little, or face it all at once in the future.
actually no I'm serious. Vice is the secret to profit. Haliburton is making an absolute fortune, as are oil companies and all the industries I mentioned. I suggest people check out vice fund.