Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:41:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
350 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> But is it in the best interest of the world as a whole for them to graduate
> from being a third world country?
Heh-- I brought that up in the other corner of the thread :) Threatening to
the US? Potentially. Good(TM)? I dunno. Depends on who for, as usual :)
> Someone has to produce raw goods. And we
> don't have the global resources for everyone on the planet to sustain the
> standard of living that the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia, etc. are
> accustomed to.
Sad but true. I'm not against them producing raw goods, but it seems that:
1. "3rd world" countries resort to 'baser' "illegalities". I'd like to say
more illegalities, or even more per capita. But that's not necessarily true.
However, you'll see different types of law breaking. Essentially that
terrorism is more likely to spring up from these countries than from places
like the US. True? Not really. But that's the argument.
2. Getting these countries on "our level" would reduce the amount of terrorism.
3. In order to reduce terrorism, create more worldwide sloth, apathy, and
comfortable living, as seen in the US.
So, from a terrorism perspective, maybe that solution works (I don't think
I'd actually argue the point though.) From an overall perspective, one has
to ask then, is a little terrorism enough of a price to pay to keep our
"edge"? How much is a little? How much is too much?
I'm sure if we changed the the world overnight and made everyone live
according to the US standard of living, it would be disasterous. But
fortunately for capitalism, things like producing raw goods (food, etc)
would go up in value as the ridiculous demand increased, and availability
waned. Hence the system would (in theory) correct itself.
Problem being: humans HATE that idea. A system self-correction implies
suffering, death, and the like. And that implies moral breakdown in society.
We hate that idea. We want to grow and prosper, not simply be contented with
steadyness and accept fate. Neitchze (sp?) kinda went into that. People have
an idea of charity which inherently goes against natural selection. You see
a starving child? You want to help him/her. And in so doing, bye-bye to
natural selection. Which isn't to say, mind you, that the child is
definitely inferior and "should" be de-selected, but that there *do* exist
those who "should" be (according to the theory), who won't be via charity.
Difficult dilemma to deal with. (Of course one could argue charity's way as
a factor into the process as well, it's just less of a direct factor; and
not one we're used to when discussing evolution, as it's currently
happening, and difficult to study and predict)
Anyway, enough rambling. I should stop.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
