Well, by definition despots are into curtailing EVERYONE's rights, no?
Will global warming be reversed by human's effort?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Oh, yes, in a way that's true. But they're usually generous to some favoured groups, elevate some favoured persons, set factions, races, classes or ethic blocs against others; while rich old male bigots (of a colour matching the despot's) might not even notice that their rights and freedoms were infringed, young poor women (any colour) might feel the boot heavy on their backs. And in their ribs, too, if they dare to speak out.
And it stands to reason: the more babies the lower class can't afford, the easier they are to intimidate. Surplus population provides cheap labour, plenty of discontented yobs to rally against the designated scapegoat, and assured generations of cannon-fodder.
Perhaps you could consider how a catastrophic global economic melt down would effect those in power. ( like much worse than the great depression of 1930's)
Power via money if money is meaningless sort of situation.
Example: Telco bankruptcy means no internet, no internet means no communication for businesses, means no digital sales, means no money transfers and so on...
One may be ok but many Telco's would spell the end of any financial order.
Oligarch's wealth out the window...
I have. You know they've all got inland, uphill, walled, solar-powered fortresses, right? You know they can't make anything in those fortresses work, right? They have a troop of well-paid minions to cook, clean, wash clothes, haul water up the mountain and guard the periphery.
So, guess what happens when money is suddenly worthless. The cooks, cleaners, laundresses water-bearers stop working. The armed guards might go a step or two further.
That's the least of it. Industry, energy-generation, transport, distribution, banking - the whole system grinds to a messy, piecemeal halt. Might take a year for all currency to become garbage.
Hint - be the invisible handyman who's built a tiny off-grid house and year-round garden behind some impenetrable bush.
You go on ignore, at this point I must assume you are a poorly programmed bot. I shudder to think that you are actually a person.
Agreed there. Generally despots favor people like them - and despots are generally male.
Yep. Which is one reason I tend to support charities that focus on women's education. More educated women = fewer unwanted kids.
Why? We never have. We've already taken out a large chunk of the ecosystem. Species are going extinct at 1000 times the pre-enlightenment [*sic] rate, and the extinctions are accelerating. We've killed some 75% of flying insects in the last half century alone, and incidentally millions of songbirds and small reptiles that subsist on insects and larvae, along with crop-dusting, habitat loss and the semi-annual carnage of city lights. Lately, we've added large-scale oil spills and plastic pollution to decimate marine life.
Something will survive. Ants are pretty much guaranteed to keep truckin'. For next dominant species, my money is on rats, though my heart is with the raccoons. Maybe they'll collaborate.
And hang every imbecile who tells them not to use condoms! Without curbing global population growth there's no point to cutting back on anything else, unless we plan on telling third world citizens to f--- off and eat their own children when they're starving. I don't plan on cutting my meat intake by so much as a gram regardless.
Perhaps just tell them to ignore said imbeciles . . .
Or if they can't ignore them, use another method. Not all women are free to demand such things.
We could stop inviting said imbeciles to participate in global affairs and stop our governments from donating money to their various sponsors or letting private donations go tax free.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
By demanding that my political representatives stop treating the Pope and other religious figures like they know anything more about the world than my neighbour next door, that they refrain from committing government funds to any charities or NGO's run by religious organizations whose religious views are allowed to affect the way the funds are spent, and taxing any religious institutions that try to involve themselves in politics (such as, for example, interfering with the healthcare system and attempting to override its recommendations).
As long as religious leaders stick to preaching about stuff that doesn't actually exist, I'm fine with them doing whatever they want, but as soon as they break the barrier between church and state they forfeit their independence.
Me, neither - since I haven't had any in 40 years.
It's the "regardless" I find particularly off-putting.
There are lots of articles floating around the internet talking about how western nations need to cut back on their meat intake and other forms of resource consumption in order to make sure there's enough for everyone. I'm not prepared to do any of that just so there can be more babies born in slums with no hope of doing anything productive with their lives.
Honestly, a part of me would like to sterilize the entirety of the human race, breeding only how ever few are sufficient to deal with nuclear waste and suchlike for the next few hundred thousand years. Weirdly, it's the part of me that actually cares, and for whom all things aren't merely intellectual exercises.
That other part of me wants to see what these fuckwits will come up with next. Like, how are they gonna ever top the iPhone in devising the most worthless fucking piece of shit ever thunk up?
No no no and no
The Earth does not belong to anyone, anything or anywhateveryoucanimagine
It just is
sculptor
Valued Senior Member