You're missing the point about friends, money and 'class'
- Actually, no, didn't miss that point - what we used to call "status symbols" and "keeping up with the Joneses". (BTW, in the future, if you think I've missed some obvious point: you're wrong.)
But it's a completely different point than we were talking about, due to confusion about the word "rich". You think a few lousy million is "rich"! Dunno whether to laugh or cry. By that criterion even I'm rich; what a joke. A few
billion - that's rich. You talk about buying
cars to flaunt your money! No, the rich buy things like elections and assasinations to show off. In fact, they bought the end of SA aparatheid (via worldwide media campaign, subsersive agitation, etc) for reasons of their own. We're on two different pages here. You mention people with a lucrative job (doctor); here, we call such people "wage slaves" - i.e., they work. If you have an honest job: you ain't rich. Rich people don't
earn money, they steal it.
IMHO ecological collapse is caused by two or three or five Billion non-poor people, not by the concentration of 50% of the World's wealth in the hands of 1%
- Sure. But who causes the paralysis of culture / gov't which makes it impossible to tackle the problem? Who doesn't
care about ecological collapse, but uses it as part of the overall process of reducing people like us (next generations, actually, we hope) to poverty?
You however know what's going on but the rest of us are just a bunch of blind sheep’s
- well, yes; but as I said b4, that's only partly true. Consider jj2007, for instance; even hutch semi-knows what's going on: truly impressive considering his mind is polluted with Wittgenstein, Tarski and such idiots. To some extent I'm just b*ll-busting. All I can say: if the shoe fits wear it.
If it’s not the rich that organize the "final solution" as you say then who is?
- It is, indeed, that same gang who are making inevitable this collapse; whether it's being "organized" is another question. But I never said they were
evil to destroy us. Rather, we're
stupid to let it happen. It's a competition: winners aren't evil, they're just successful. Losers aren't "good", they're just losers.
- As long as we're on the subject, there are
only two things which are evil: causing unnecessary suffering to innocent animals (including humans) and leaving the world worse than you found it (thus causing unnecessary suffering to innocent animals, viz., future generations). Killing (for instance) is
not evil, per se (can be "good", in fact). Neither are lying, cheating, stealing, dishonoring thy father and mother, lusting after thy neighbor's wife, taking the lord's name in vain, atheism, racism, sexism, hubris, sloth, greed ... even vices like drugs and pornography aren't evil
per se. (Admittedly when the effects of such things on society are taken into account, a case can be made against them.) Anyway, the powers that be can indeed be accused of evil, that is, causing unnecessary suffering and destroying environment; but that wasn't the point addressed here.
More money to the poor gives more consumption and thereby more pollution, hence the moral dilemma.
- It's only a dilemma if you insist on giving money to the poor. ... As Herbert Spencer pointed out, "Philanthropy is a great crime, against future generations" (words to that effect)
When younger I was also fooled into the banking scheme
- me three
