I was watching this cute cartoon with my son, yesterday, and it was actually pretty well done. The cartoon showed how the world would be if it was reduced to a village of 100 people. I couldn't find it on-line so far, but here is a little bit about it...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4C-u6kdHuXE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4C-u6kdHuXE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


http://www.talkingbirdspress.com/colm100.html
http://users.gazinter.net/melan/Warn/Warnenu.htm


Pretty good to put the human situation into perspective...
And a nice friendly show for kids... :cool:

A little bit depressing, but pretty cool.

Makes you think when they flash the 'x amount of people struggle to survive on $1 per day'. I've spent about £30 on 'stuff' today and I'd be hard pushed to tell you what.

Appreciate what you have WTF?
Didn't they mention that 6 mofos own 57% of everrything through terrorism while 18 people have to do hard labor to get $1?
Is the "appreciate what you have" line talking to those bastards?

Yes. Before you know it, it won't be theirs anymore.

"If you live in the U.S., you are part of the 5% of the global population which is consuming 40% of the world's resources and creating 25% of the emissions that cause global warming. Today's generation has consumed more resources than the 14 previous generations together--and much of it becomes landfill. The poorest 20% of the world's population consume just 1% of its resources."



The reason for this is that all resources on the planet don't go to the people of the planet. The resources go to the rich.

Your point?

Your point?
The reason for this is that all resources on the planet don't go to the people of the planet. The resources go to the rich.

The reason for this is that all resources on the planet don't go to the people of the planet. The resources go to the rich.

Your point?

(The definition of insanity is to do exactly the same thing twice and expect different results.)

Your point?
The point is that you are mentally retarded and brain damaged.

The point is that you are mentally retarded and brain damaged.

What does that have to do with world hunger?

Why not do a 100 person United States village so we can see the wealth and statistical distribution of folks within the USA?

What does that have to do with world hunger?
Who cares?

The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.

Why not do a 100 person United States village so we can see the wealth and statistical distribution of folks within the USA?

I have read things like that. I'm still not sure what you are getting at, though. Rich people die off about as quickly as normal people do, so the resources they hoard are only in their hands for a relatively short period of time.

Look at Marx's dialectic. (You are familiar with Marx, aren't you? I mean, you must be, since you're so fascinated by socioeconomic stratification.) The status quo is constantly being overturned. Look across periods in history, and you will never see the same 5% with most of the wealth. It's a power struggle; it's how equilibrium is reached. Social thermodynamics.

Well, I suppose capitalism is not doing a great job at allocating resources...

You are familiar with Marx, aren't you? I mean, you must be, since you're so
IRRELEVANT.

The fact that 3 people have more than 48 countries goes to show how dumb humans on earth are. With the kind of wealth we have, not a single person should be without food, clean water, electricity, apparel, high education, and a First World lifestyle.

Well, I suppose capitalism is not doing a great job at allocating resources...

People aren't doing a great job at allocating resources.

If all humanity was only 100 people in a community, there would be no poor people. We can relate to 100 people.

We can't relate to 5 billion people we've never seen.

With the kind of wealth we have, not a single person should be without food, clean water, electricity, apparel, high education, and a First World lifestyle.

FLAWED.

IRRELEVANT.

The fact that 3 people have more than 48 countries goes to show how dumb humans on earth are. With the kind of wealth we have, not a single person should be without food, clean water, electricity, apparel, high education, and a First World lifestyle.

and how exactly are we to acheive this if people like you refuse to work?

Every time we try sending food and medicine to those 48 countries, their corrupt, aristocratic leaders hijack it and sell it on the black market. Then they use the money to support their debauchery, or to buy weapons from China to use in their war against the corrupt, aristocratic leader of the neighboring starving country.

Imagine what it's like trying to go over there and help them build a university or a hydroelectric power plant.

and how exactly are we to acheive this if people like you refuse to work?
????

IRRELEVANT.

The fact that 3 people have more than 48 countries goes to show how dumb humans on earth are. With the kind of wealth we have, not a single person should be without food, clean water, electricity, apparel, high education, and a First World lifestyle.

So the answer is no. You're not familiar with Marx.

What a poser. You're the shittiest radical ever.

So the answer is no. You're not familiar with Marx.

What a poser. You're the shittiest radical ever.
THE ANSWER IS IRRELEVANT.
We are not in the same centure as Marx.

We are not in the same centure as Marx.

If you knew Marx, you would know that the time period does not matter. You are an ignorant poser.

60 Asians 14 Africans 12 Europeans 8 Latinos 5 U.S./Canadians

51 male 49 female

18 white 82 non-white

11 homosexuals 89 heterosexuals

33 Christians 18 Muslims 14 Hindus 16 non-religious 6 Buddhists

1/100 with a college education 1/100 has HIV/AIDS

IRRELEVANT.

The fact that 3 people have more than 48 countries goes to show how dumb humans on earth are. With the kind of wealth we have, not a single person should be without food, clean water, electricity, apparel, high education, and a First World lifestyle.
It's impossible for everyone to have a first world lifestyle. The first world is less then 10% of the population and they consume over 80% of all the resources. This planet could never support that kind of lifestyle in such a large scale!

People aren't doing a great job at allocating resources.

If all humanity was only 100 people in a community, there would be no poor people. We can relate to 100 people.

We can't relate to 5 billion people we've never seen.
Maybe the internet could help with that. I can relate to you, for example, and I have absolutely no idea where you are!! :D

Every time we try sending food and medicine to those 48 countries, their corrupt, aristocratic leaders hijack it and sell it on the black market. Then they use the money to support their debauchery, or to buy weapons from China to use in their war against the corrupt, aristocratic leader of the neighboring starving country.

Imagine what it's like trying to go over there and help them build a university or a hydroelectric power plant.
Those dictators were put in power by the US. So what can we do, really?

Besides, giving food and stuff is not enough. We need to help those countries become self-sufficient.

I personally kinda like that Bush took Saddam away. The US had put Saddam there, and it was disgusting. However, I hate the fact that Bush used excuses to do it. Personally, I think Bush was after the oil. He didn't give a damn about those Iraqui people. If he did, he would simply say so and be honest about it.

I don't see much problem if the US would go around the world freeing oppressed people, because the US made those people oppressed in the first place, and, therefore, it's their responsibility. However, if that was to happen, the US would have to be very transparent and state clearly that their intentions are reasonable. Unfortunately, that's not what the US (or rather Bush & Co.) cares about. They only care about their oil.

FLAWED.

lixluke labors under the misapprehension that money is a limited, edible resource.

~Raithere

P.S. The naïveté around here is terrifying.

Ar' ya talkin' abut me? AR' YA TALKIN' ABUT ME!?!?!? :mad:

*showing fists*