Post by Sinbad on Sept 25, 2009 7:01:17 GMT -5
In order to not keep spamming the other thread with our in depth debates, here goes. 
I´m reposting some of the most recent posts. Bryn, I´ll have a response for your last post up in a few mins.
________________________________________________
[glow=red,2,300]BRYN[/glow]
The Earth has lots of resources. Industrial countries throw away tons and tons of overproduction every year. If products, food, water and other resources were properly shared, if governments invested more money into helping people to get clean water and such and if for example the US would spend just 1% of what they spend on warfare on hunger aid, there would be no hunger. The planet´s resources are rich enough to be able to feed far more than the good six billion of us there are. Again, no offense, but such small minds for such imperfect beings (quote Borg queen from Star Trek: First Contact www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChmli9-X-I ). Mathematically there is no way to produce enough to sustain everyone. And I am not just talking about now, but also in the future. How can we possibly grow enough food for an exponential population growth with deserts growing every year and arable land declining. Oil is ultimately going to run out. Yes, we do waste a lot, but our practices our still unsustainable. And the US gives out far more aid than Germany. No offense, but know what you are talking about before you talk. Otherwise you look stupid.
20/20 is a news talk show. www.youtube.com/watch?v=V122ICNS8_0
[glow=red,2,300]SINBAD[/glow]
I´m not talking about exponential growth but about now and a bit beyond. There are statistics that prove that we could feed more people than there are now, but if you consider how much food is thrown away on a daily basis whereas on the other end thousands of kids die of hunger each day, that´s bad distribution in my eyes.
As for energy sources, oil is running out, but it´s time to get away from oil and such anyways. Water, wind, sun, that never runs out. A few villages near where I grew up are completely powered by wind energy.
And the US gives out far more aid than Germany. No offense, but know what you are talking about before you talk. Otherwise you look stupid.
Well, seeing that whole of Germany is one third the size of Texas: kinda figures, right?
I was making a comparison to warfare, to how much money has been thrown out for warfare ever since 2003. I was referring to the fact that a small fraction of the money could have done wonders in third world countries.
And here´s some more on the fact that at least for now we do have enough food, we just don´t share it right.
The theme for the large international gathering at the United Nations World Food Summit in Rome in 1996 was "Hunger in a world of plenty." United Nations representatives and non-government organizations (NGOs) from around the world met to discuss ways to solve this global crisis, which continues to escalate and challenge the conscience and sustainability of humankind in the 21st century. The meeting's secretary general, Dr. Kay Killingsworth, explained that the problem was not insufficient food production but inequitable distribution. "
Also compare:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_feeding_the_world/html/1.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_feeding_the_world/html/2.stm
www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-29.htm
www.wisegeek.com/how-can-we-solve-world-hunger.htm
You can trust I don´t take my arguments from thin air therefore
[glow=red,2,300]BRYN[/glow]
From your last article, "The problem is that poorer countries which could benefit from these surpluses are often controlled by hostile governments which either refuse offers of food or essentially hold the food hostage at vital distribution points." Yes, the United States sends billions of dollars of food aid to Africa, but most African governments don't distribute the food. I wonder, instead of playing toss with those African governments, should we just invade Africa and place in our own government. Militarily, I think we can, although not for the whole Africa continent. We would need help, most likely from Europe. And what are you Europeans doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not much. And ethically, well, are we just going to sit back and watch those people die?
Most of our military forces are abroad. We provide defense for Iceland, Japan, and some Latin American countries. How many troops does Germany provide in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, former Yugoslavia, and along the North Korean border? If the U.S. withdrew those troops, would we have had World War III?
The U.S. gives twice as much food aid than the EU. www.cbc.ca/news/background/international-aid/gfx/foodaid1.gif However, the EU has a larger GDP than the United States. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 The U.S has a GDP of $14.2 trillion. The EU has a GDP of $18 trillion.
Yes, I agree that the F-22 program, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor, was a waste of money. First of all, we don't need it. We are fine with our F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s. Those three jets are still within the best in the world. But do you need the Eurofighter? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon And how much does France spend on its military?
Where do you think our $1.5 trillion deficit comes from? If the amount of aid, both food and military, was distributed equally among the world, then the world would be a lot more peaceful. Everybody expects the U.S. to do it, because we have the most money.
In the 24th century, according to Star Trek, the U.S. was the world. Yes, there was still individual governments. It would be almost impossible to have a country of such size. But all governments worked with the U.S. government and all political boundaries no longer existed. Money was no longer in use. The world worked to better humanity. However, I don't think this utopia would work. First of all, with no money, how are people going to work? In a way, that is Marxism, and has Marxism worked? No, because it defies human nature.
So, you do seem a little smarter to me, but take a larger view and don't focus on a few documents.
But anyway, those were interesting articles.
And from your other post, if we gave up oil, how do we drive? Ethanol currently is made by corn, which has caused corn prices to skyrocket. Cellulose-based ethanol is under research. The electric car can only go so far. And distances are a lot bigger in the U.S than in Europe. But we are progressing, just not there yet.
[glow=red,2,300]SINBAD[/glow]
I wonder, instead of playing toss with those African governments, should we just invade Africa and place in our own government.
*shudders at that*No. Definitely, no. I understand the ethical problem of that, as in the argument that there are people dieing under terror regimes and such but there are things such as the fact that countries have a right for self government. Human rights, the UN charta and such have the task to keep terror and inhumanity at bay, but I think it is simply not the task of any country to invade another just because they think their system is the better one. Ethical issues aside here for a moment.
Invasion is agressive warfare and wars of agression are a crime and have been ever since it was stated to be a crime in 1946 with the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials (and that of Tokyo around the same period). No country, US or other has the right to invade a country. For no reason. (Defence is a different matter)
We have peace troops in both, we just don´t aid in invasion. The war against Iraq was unjustified, we did not want to be involved in that, not because of cowardice or because of shying away from commitment, but because we are extremely careful about starting wars, especially if they have no justified basis.
The reason why Germany does not pump as much money into those wars is evident, but part of it is mentality related. We don´t share a feeling of "Manifest Destiny" that has always been typically American and that, in my opinion, heavily influences American politics and thoughts such as the spreading of democracy or playing what we Europeans sometimes call "world police."
This doesn´t matter. Yours and our way to lead wars are completely different. We do not get involved in conflicts that are not our own. The presence of AMerican troops everywhere in the world is one thing, but have every country do that to the same amount and you´d have chaos. Again, the thinking behind that is Manifest Destiny related, the idea that America is needed for some states because they are uncapable of governing themselves. What we need instead is to reason, to go down paths like what is being discussed these days such as the thought of banning ALL atomic weapons from the surface of this planet. That´s what we need to make the world a safe place.
Well, it sounds only fair that those with most money are most fit to provide most help, right?
Agreed on Marxism. It doesn´t work. Same with anarchy. Nice idea, but doesn´t work. Not with humans. With robots? Sure.
However, I am glad we do not have an American "world government." It sounds a lot too imperialist to me. Again, this might be mentality motivated.
And from your other post, if we gave up oil, how do we drive?
I do not say we need to give up oil from one day to the next, but we have to get prepared for a time when oil reserves have run dry. As far as I am informed the car industry (at least here in Europe) is testing hybrid cars already that partly are powered with electricity but can switch back on fuel for longer distances. These are beginnings. We have to think in the longer perspective. We won´t have no-fuel cars tomorrow but maybe in 50 years. After all, there were times when people couldn´t imagine flying machines and today it´s the easiest thing in the world for us.
I´m not sure if maybe some of the stuff above sounds a bit heated. However, I trust you know that this is meant in good debating way and not meant to be insulting, hurtful or accusing in any way.
[glow=red,2,300]DOUBAR[/glow]
What we need instead is to reason, to go down paths like what is being discussed these days such as the thought of banning ALL atomic weapons from the surface of this planet. That´s what we need to make the world a safe place. Aye, the world definitely would need that. But this is never going to happen, if you ask me. 
[glow=red,2,300]BRYN[/glow]
[
Invasion is agressive warfare and wars of agression are a crime and have been ever since it was stated to be a crime in 1946 with the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials (and that of Tokyo around the same period). No country, US or other has the right to invade a country. For no reason. Well, most of the African governments were not put up by the people, but by warlords or European nations. Remember, most of Africa was still under European control until the 1960s.
An as for the UN, I think it is over-hyped. The UN had a chance to remove the Somalian government in the 1990s. But did it do so? No. And that cost thousands of African lives as the nation went on a genocide campaign. If the U.S. did not step in, there might have been more killing. Now sorry, but I don't see any ethical logic to not doing anything. Sure, the country will probably put in the right government. But it will take several hundred years, if not forever. And over that time, how many people are going to die? Are you really so poor-minded and ignorant to think about yourself?
We are there not because of conflicts, but to maintain peace. Iceland asked us to provide defense. Japan asked us to stay. South Korea wanted American troops along the North Korea border. Yes, somethings like Iraq and Afghanistan are because we started it. But just like Vatican City has the Swiss guard as their defense, we provide Iceland's defense.
Yes, but the EU, which has $4 trillion more than the U.S., should provide more help.
Old news. The Japanese have been doing it since the 1970s.
Same here. ;D I just like educating you. ;D And maybe you can educate me. ;D
Btw, do you think it is good idea to post this and continue the debate in a new thread?
I´m reposting some of the most recent posts. Bryn, I´ll have a response for your last post up in a few mins.
________________________________________________
[glow=red,2,300]BRYN[/glow]
What´s 20/20?
[glow=red,2,300]SINBAD[/glow]
I´m not talking about exponential growth but about now and a bit beyond. There are statistics that prove that we could feed more people than there are now, but if you consider how much food is thrown away on a daily basis whereas on the other end thousands of kids die of hunger each day, that´s bad distribution in my eyes.
As for energy sources, oil is running out, but it´s time to get away from oil and such anyways. Water, wind, sun, that never runs out. A few villages near where I grew up are completely powered by wind energy.
Well, seeing that whole of Germany is one third the size of Texas: kinda figures, right?
I was making a comparison to warfare, to how much money has been thrown out for warfare ever since 2003. I was referring to the fact that a small fraction of the money could have done wonders in third world countries.
And here´s some more on the fact that at least for now we do have enough food, we just don´t share it right.
The theme for the large international gathering at the United Nations World Food Summit in Rome in 1996 was "Hunger in a world of plenty." United Nations representatives and non-government organizations (NGOs) from around the world met to discuss ways to solve this global crisis, which continues to escalate and challenge the conscience and sustainability of humankind in the 21st century. The meeting's secretary general, Dr. Kay Killingsworth, explained that the problem was not insufficient food production but inequitable distribution. "
Also compare:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_feeding_the_world/html/1.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_feeding_the_world/html/2.stm
www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-29.htm
www.wisegeek.com/how-can-we-solve-world-hunger.htm
You can trust I don´t take my arguments from thin air therefore
[glow=red,2,300]BRYN[/glow]
From your last article, "The problem is that poorer countries which could benefit from these surpluses are often controlled by hostile governments which either refuse offers of food or essentially hold the food hostage at vital distribution points." Yes, the United States sends billions of dollars of food aid to Africa, but most African governments don't distribute the food. I wonder, instead of playing toss with those African governments, should we just invade Africa and place in our own government. Militarily, I think we can, although not for the whole Africa continent. We would need help, most likely from Europe. And what are you Europeans doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not much. And ethically, well, are we just going to sit back and watch those people die?
Most of our military forces are abroad. We provide defense for Iceland, Japan, and some Latin American countries. How many troops does Germany provide in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, former Yugoslavia, and along the North Korean border? If the U.S. withdrew those troops, would we have had World War III?
The U.S. gives twice as much food aid than the EU. www.cbc.ca/news/background/international-aid/gfx/foodaid1.gif However, the EU has a larger GDP than the United States. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 The U.S has a GDP of $14.2 trillion. The EU has a GDP of $18 trillion.
Yes, I agree that the F-22 program, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor, was a waste of money. First of all, we don't need it. We are fine with our F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s. Those three jets are still within the best in the world. But do you need the Eurofighter? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon And how much does France spend on its military?
Where do you think our $1.5 trillion deficit comes from? If the amount of aid, both food and military, was distributed equally among the world, then the world would be a lot more peaceful. Everybody expects the U.S. to do it, because we have the most money.
In the 24th century, according to Star Trek, the U.S. was the world. Yes, there was still individual governments. It would be almost impossible to have a country of such size. But all governments worked with the U.S. government and all political boundaries no longer existed. Money was no longer in use. The world worked to better humanity. However, I don't think this utopia would work. First of all, with no money, how are people going to work? In a way, that is Marxism, and has Marxism worked? No, because it defies human nature.
So, you do seem a little smarter to me, but take a larger view and don't focus on a few documents.
But anyway, those were interesting articles.
And from your other post, if we gave up oil, how do we drive? Ethanol currently is made by corn, which has caused corn prices to skyrocket. Cellulose-based ethanol is under research. The electric car can only go so far. And distances are a lot bigger in the U.S than in Europe. But we are progressing, just not there yet.
[glow=red,2,300]SINBAD[/glow]
*shudders at that*No. Definitely, no. I understand the ethical problem of that, as in the argument that there are people dieing under terror regimes and such but there are things such as the fact that countries have a right for self government. Human rights, the UN charta and such have the task to keep terror and inhumanity at bay, but I think it is simply not the task of any country to invade another just because they think their system is the better one. Ethical issues aside here for a moment.
Invasion is agressive warfare and wars of agression are a crime and have been ever since it was stated to be a crime in 1946 with the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials (and that of Tokyo around the same period). No country, US or other has the right to invade a country. For no reason. (Defence is a different matter)
We have peace troops in both, we just don´t aid in invasion. The war against Iraq was unjustified, we did not want to be involved in that, not because of cowardice or because of shying away from commitment, but because we are extremely careful about starting wars, especially if they have no justified basis.
The reason why Germany does not pump as much money into those wars is evident, but part of it is mentality related. We don´t share a feeling of "Manifest Destiny" that has always been typically American and that, in my opinion, heavily influences American politics and thoughts such as the spreading of democracy or playing what we Europeans sometimes call "world police."
This doesn´t matter. Yours and our way to lead wars are completely different. We do not get involved in conflicts that are not our own. The presence of AMerican troops everywhere in the world is one thing, but have every country do that to the same amount and you´d have chaos. Again, the thinking behind that is Manifest Destiny related, the idea that America is needed for some states because they are uncapable of governing themselves. What we need instead is to reason, to go down paths like what is being discussed these days such as the thought of banning ALL atomic weapons from the surface of this planet. That´s what we need to make the world a safe place.
Well, it sounds only fair that those with most money are most fit to provide most help, right?
Agreed on Marxism. It doesn´t work. Same with anarchy. Nice idea, but doesn´t work. Not with humans. With robots? Sure.
However, I am glad we do not have an American "world government." It sounds a lot too imperialist to me. Again, this might be mentality motivated.
I do not say we need to give up oil from one day to the next, but we have to get prepared for a time when oil reserves have run dry. As far as I am informed the car industry (at least here in Europe) is testing hybrid cars already that partly are powered with electricity but can switch back on fuel for longer distances. These are beginnings. We have to think in the longer perspective. We won´t have no-fuel cars tomorrow but maybe in 50 years. After all, there were times when people couldn´t imagine flying machines and today it´s the easiest thing in the world for us.
I´m not sure if maybe some of the stuff above sounds a bit heated. However, I trust you know that this is meant in good debating way and not meant to be insulting, hurtful or accusing in any way.
[glow=red,2,300]DOUBAR[/glow]
[glow=red,2,300]BRYN[/glow]
Invasion is agressive warfare and wars of agression are a crime and have been ever since it was stated to be a crime in 1946 with the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials (and that of Tokyo around the same period). No country, US or other has the right to invade a country. For no reason.
An as for the UN, I think it is over-hyped. The UN had a chance to remove the Somalian government in the 1990s. But did it do so? No. And that cost thousands of African lives as the nation went on a genocide campaign. If the U.S. did not step in, there might have been more killing. Now sorry, but I don't see any ethical logic to not doing anything. Sure, the country will probably put in the right government. But it will take several hundred years, if not forever. And over that time, how many people are going to die? Are you really so poor-minded and ignorant to think about yourself?
We are there not because of conflicts, but to maintain peace. Iceland asked us to provide defense. Japan asked us to stay. South Korea wanted American troops along the North Korea border. Yes, somethings like Iraq and Afghanistan are because we started it. But just like Vatican City has the Swiss guard as their defense, we provide Iceland's defense.
Yes, but the EU, which has $4 trillion more than the U.S., should provide more help.
Old news. The Japanese have been doing it since the 1970s.
I´m not sure if maybe some of the stuff above sounds a bit heated. However, I trust you know that this is meant in good debating way and not meant to be insulting, hurtful or accusing in any way.
Btw, do you think it is good idea to post this and continue the debate in a new thread?
