Half-truths.
Charities are currently overwhelmed trying to help the poor. There are 40 million people on food stamps now. There is no way that charities could support all those people long-term. I dare anyone who thinks I am wrong to come up with a way that these charities are going to support that many poor people.
Liberals advocate for fixing the problems that make people poor. Charities nowadays are little more than an act of cleaning up the mess created by the corporate elites.
no, liberals advocate forcing poor people pay thousands per year for health insurance and putting them in prison if they fail to either pay up or sign up to some “subsidized government-run insurance for the poor”, complete with an intrusive means test, government social worker coming once a month to check up on how they are doing and whatever else that the bureaucracy will decide to throw at them.
In short, liberals are working over time to turn poor free people into government slaves that can be pushed around every which way and imprisoned for noncompliance.
Well, I’d say rather that liberals are very generous with other people’s money and conservatives doubt this is sustainable. Charities would be less overwhelmed if people gave to them instead of assuming the government would pick up the slack.
I’ve never heard of this. I thought this thread was about the more interesting topic of ethics in an actual lifeboat at sea.
Well maybe it’s the overgeneralization that makes it sound like nonsense. How is the net loss guaranteed for the donee? Are they somehow forced to maintain the inability to sustain themselves?
I mean this is the really interesting part. See in the US, the ‘fly-over’ country, ‘America’s bread basket’, they haven’t been able to sustain themselves for a really long time. All the ‘liberals’ on the coasts work extra hard to pay taxes to prop them up, so they have things like roads, schools, hospitals, and electricity. So does that mean the ‘liberal’ coasts have better land, or is the middle of the country not really the agricultural fount they claim to be?
So we should we stop paying those extra taxes to support all those welfare states?
Well how come the whole world didn’t run out of food a long time ago. I mean insects have been depleting our fertile land for aeons. How come we haven’t run out? Is it because we are on the edge of the agricultural collapse where the world has no more resources? Or is it nonsense made up of whole cloth to push someone’s political agenda?
It doesn’t sound like people subscribing to this philosophy generally think.
Wrong. Liberals pushed the Public Option and are now pushing a Medicare for All bill. It has 88 liberal sponsors. Medicare for All Act - Wikipedia
The mandatory health insurance purchase system was first enacted in America in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, a Republican Governor. He’s NOT a liberal. The only reason we have any mandatory program now is because REPUBLICANS derailed the Public Option.
Plus there is no intrusive means test in any health care laws currently in effect, or in any law pushed by liberals, certainly nothing that has a “government social worker coming once a month to check up on how they are doing”.
And aliens are planning to take over the world on May 21st, too. :rolleyes:
It’s about management, ag science, and political stability.
Sometimes wealthier nations giving food to the poorer nations hurt - like when Haiti was given rice and local farmers went bust.
Please do link some of these articles, it is a point I have heard before and I would enjoy reading what exactly is being depleted from our soil, and why it is unsustainable. It sounds like baseless fear-mongering to me personally, but I’d be willing to accept it as a real problem should a logical argument be made alongside an appropriate scientific study.
Well I’m not sure if Lifeboat Ethics is valid or not, that’s why I’m presenting it to you for interpretation but I’m pretty sure that most of what you state above would be useless in that determination.
The reason for most of this discussion in the first place is that the world population doubled from 1850 to 1925, doubled again between 1925 and 1976 and is expected to double again within the next decade or so. So that’s pretty much why people “didn’t run out of food a long time ago”.
Secondly, its pretty common knowledge that insects help in the formation of top soil rather than deplete it. Soil without insect and microbe activity is just useless dirt.
They are in fact having to think as a consequence of the droves of people that aren’t.
I really haven’t researched the causes too much, but finding the articles isn’t much of a problem at all. There are thousands. The real problem is digging through them to distinguish the good sources from the bad.
The general consensus does seem to be that the biggest cause of soil depletion is erosion.
When someone starts insisting that we have literally infinite tools for agriculture on this planet, I think it’s reasonably clear that that’s the nonsense.
All of what you stated would be useless in determining that. Where is any evidence of this concept of land depletion? Are we living in some kind of 18th century agronomy? How does your ‘theory’ explain Saudi Arabia, which cannot possibly produce enough food to feed it’s people, but recieves no food donations, and donates funds for food to other nations?
My mistake. I didn’t realize the world was uninhabited by other animals that eat before humans became the predominant species.
Yes, excellent point that doesn’t explain anything about your ‘theory’. Maybe we aren’t forcing people to stay in a location that can’t support them, and instead we’re just killing their insects.
The people who had to be forced to think definitely are the ones who didn’t think much. At least we agree on that.
Seriously?
Are you really filibustering me into some type of fact finding mission to prove something I never claimed as my own ‘theory’? Especially since its not a theory at all.
You originally stated you had never heard about Lifeboat Ethics and while I grant you that I should have provided a link and did not, one was thoughtfully provided by another poster a short time later.
Please read something about it.
It is merely a thought experiment and you are fighting it as an opposing political agenda resolute in destroying human morality.
Here is an excerpt:
All people have done is draw a corollary between a lifeboat and the utilization of earthly resources, for instance. Its meant to provide a framework for discussion on how to make a conscious effort to properly preserve resources for future generations.
That’s it.
Edit: I just noticed you posted a similar discussion applying Lifeboat Ethics to Abortion. That’s what its all about 