Discussion Random Discussion

[SaintsSeptember]

True.

The issue of poverty cones down to cost of purchase and income.

It will take a massive paradigm shift for this to change.

The problem I see with modern capitalism is the way it is now structured to perform.

Capitalists used to start a factory and employ locals etc. Communities were built on this.

These days it's all about shareholder returns. And the incentive for execs to increase that return.

Hence you find decisions being made to boost bonuses, and bean counters making job cuts, take overs and mergers.

None of these have the community in mind.

Social democratic countries make decisions that will benefit society whilst allowing capitalism to thrive.

As I said above, until you cut lobby influence on policy, nothing changes.

Governments make the rules and the lobbyists with the most money influence that policy which works to their best interests.

This IMO is where the real corruption exists in our system. Elected politicians doing the bidding on behalf of their donors.

On the flip side, people are mostly ignorant and vote along party lines, regardless if it's within their bests interests or not.

I really hate the current trend of management by KPI. Rather than understand the businesses they simplify it down to KPI's that can look good in reports. Managers spend as much time trying to manipulate this crap rather than fixing problems or improving.

Interestingly there are organisations who are still driven to be profitable, but are not so much greedy.
------------
Robert Bosch GmbH, including its wholly owned subsidiaries such as Robert Bosch LLC in North America, is unusual in that it is an extremely large, privately owned corporation that is almost entirely (92%) owned by a charitable foundation. Thus, while most of the profits are invested back into the corporation to build for the future and sustain growth, nearly all of the profits distributed to shareholders are devoted to humanitarian causes.

In 1937, Bosch had restructured his company as a private limited company (close corporation). He had established his last will and testament, in which he stipulated that the earnings of the company should be allocated to charitable causes. At the same time, his will sketched the outlines of the corporate constitution, which was formulated by his successors in 1964 and is still valid today.
------------

Aldi is another example of a privately owned company. I don't know what they are like to deal with but i haven't heard of the type of supplier horror stories like i have from Coles and Woolworths.

They probably don't need the perpetual growth that shares driven companies need.

My other pet hate is when a new supermarket or shopping centre opens, the supermarket chain and the local council will carry on about the jobs that were created. HELLO!!! its not like the people that will shop there didn't buy their groceries somewhere else already.
We get councillors running round flapping their hands like schoolgirls because Costco might be coming to their council. Net gain to the broader community ....nothing really.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'd also to see a system where candidates are selected at a local level, by the people. Then they can run at elections.

If it means more independents and minority governments with power sharing arrangements, then so be it.

At the moment the choice is black or white and nothing in between.

Yeah.
Councils run along party lines without necessarily saying who they support, then you get dummy candidates who are merely there to pass their votes onto the their labor/liberal buddy.

 

[gringo2011]

I really hate the current trend of management by KPI. Rather than understand the businesses they simplify it down to KPI's that can look good in reports. Managers spend as much time trying to manipulate this crap rather than fixing problems or improving.

Interestingly there are organisations who are still driven to be profitable, but are not so much greedy.
------------
Robert Bosch GmbH, including its wholly owned subsidiaries such as Robert Bosch LLC in North America, is unusual in that it is an extremely large, privately owned corporation that is almost entirely (92%) owned by a charitable foundation. Thus, while most of the profits are invested back into the corporation to build for the future and sustain growth, nearly all of the profits distributed to shareholders are devoted to humanitarian causes.

In 1937, Bosch had restructured his company as a private limited company (close corporation). He had established his last will and testament, in which he stipulated that the earnings of the company should be allocated to charitable causes. At the same time, his will sketched the outlines of the corporate constitution, which was formulated by his successors in 1964 and is still valid today.
------------

Aldi is another example of a privately owned company. I don't know what they are like to deal with but i haven't heard of the type of supplier horror stories like i have from Coles and Woolworths.

They probably don't need the perpetual growth that shares driven companies need.

My other pet hate is when a new supermarket or shopping centre opens, the supermarket chain and the local council will carry on about the jobs that were created. HELLO!!! its not like the people that will shop there didn't buy their groceries somewhere else already.
We get councillors running round flapping their hands like schoolgirls because Costco might be coming to their council. Net gain to the broader community ....nothing really.

Aldi are arseholes too, they all need to supply cheaper and pressure the suppliers and farmers to make it cheaper to keep their own profits. I know people who do large scale dairy and still make good money, it's just anyone who is too small gets crushed.I have family who still farm and others who have closed down dairies that are now doing beef cattle.

Friends know a women who sold her fashion business and got head hunted by Aldi, they gave a her a store manager role. She works some 16 hour days and gets no extra for it. She does everything from the checkouts to stocking shelves as well as running the store. They are severely understaffed and make their employees do extra free.

 

[gringo2011]

Yeah.
Councils run along party lines without necessarily saying who they support, then you get dummy candidates who are merely there to pass their votes onto the their labor/liberal buddy.

Yeah some people are saying that the Libs in Abbotts seat are running Zali Steggle against him to bounce preferences back as an independent. Dastardly but not stupid.

 

[StFly]

Strange response but sure

Is the world over populated. I'm not so sure. Are some of the developing nations over populated. Hell yes. The issue really is their transition into becoming a developed nation and the pain that comes with it. No different to Europe coming through the industrial revolution and all the nasty bi products from it.

Technology and their further growth will fix that before war does.

Beyond that expansion beyond our planet.

The flip side to the developing nations transitioning will be the decline of standards amongst the poor in the developed nations. Automation will only add fuel to the fire in that regard.

I feel there's a revolution coming in the next 20 years. I think the next generation will be more active in standing up to their governments and the inequality in wealth.

No more strange than asking if someone actually wants the genocide of several million and not expecting a response belittling your scope of expected replies.

Are we producing the majority of what we consume? No.
Are we growing as a people instead of maintaining or retracting? Yes.

Eventually, if nothing is done, resources will run out. It is simply numbers eventually as 30% does not equal 100%.

Technology is a double edged sword, and I'd prefer not to have a chernobyl like event when it comes to say food production to spur on advancements and increases to match increasing demand. Or would you say happily consume cloned lamb that tastes like chicken with the health benefits of a vegan supergod that looked like a smoothie of dirt and was delivered via suppository?

I don't really agree with your timeline either, there's literally no groundswell for any revolution to take place, let alone in 20 years time. Bogan beach going sydneysiders not withstanding from the argument.

I don't mean to dampen your sentiment as I enjoy your tone, but that is historically incorrect. For millenia the world's population was essentially stagnant while we were clearly the dominant species. Population growth really only picked up with the industrial revolution and its advancements. Sorry, demography nerd.

Well yeah, but consider; we have to breed really well to spring from homo whatever, that a small blip of a few centuries is hardly relevant

You a

You are right that a world war would cull people...the only two significant types of events that have culled global population have been war and disease. Overpopulation has never been an issue, and really isn't an issue, globally. These matters are particularly local and tend to sort themselves out.

Specifically Russians if history is to repeat itself.

Its my observation.
I'd like to hear your idea's of a successful revolution, and how to motivate people to improve without capitalism.

Actually Russia from a fundamental monarchy to the Bolsheviks seizing power initially against the populist vote and in a relatively short time all things considered, becoming one of the pre-eminent powers globally. 1905 to the 1940's and propelling into the USSR and threatening the USA. All as a faux communist into totalitarian state.

 

[Nutsngum]

I think capitalism is a flawed model, it requires people to buy stuff, if no-one is employed then no-one can buy. Globalism was meant to stop that by allowing mega corps access to markets in new countries as they develop. To me the world order is changing and I for one welcome our new ant overlords. Seriously though, when commies were coming the west held up the freedoms that we all had as what made us special. Now they do the same shit as the commies, spy on citizens, detain whistle-blowers etc.

Post war the economies were in good condition as we had enough work and the tariffs kept local workers employed in producing our own stuff. The global model is all about minimising the costs of production and selling more and more product. It's not sustainable and more like that Hungry Hippos game, just grab as much as you can before the game ends.

With a global model you need a global authority, but how the hell would that ever work. We can't agree globally on anything.

I say this without really much education in economics but I do believe one of the issues we have is far too strict definitions of things like "capitalism, communism, socialism etc.." largely because I think that all these models seem to be lacking in some way or another.

Capitalism by itself as a concept is fine in that it is important for the incentive of personal profit to exist. Development of new and better products and systems is generally a positive thing which a communist system absolutely fails to nurture and in many ways restricts. Look up the story of the creator of Tetris for a perfect example of how this can be a bad thing. However capitalistic tendencies are horribly unregulated which results in the common worker simply being exploited enmasse so a minority can profit heavily or key infrastructure sold off to private hands when it should absolutely be handled by the government. Energy* and prisons are two examples that I do not believe should never be privately run.

*solar being a caveat due to it really being a mass crowd owned system.

 

[StCicatriz]

No more strange than asking if someone actually wants the genocide of several million and not expecting a response belittling your scope of expected replies.

Are we producing the majority of what we consume? No.
Are we growing as a people instead of maintaining or retracting? Yes.

Eventually, if nothing is done, resources will run out. It is simply numbers eventually as 30% does not equal 100%.

Technology is a double edged sword, and I'd prefer not to have a chernobyl like event when it comes to say food production to spur on advancements and increases to match increasing demand. Or would you say happily consume cloned lamb that tastes like chicken with the health benefits of a vegan supergod that looked like a smoothie of dirt and was delivered via suppository?

I don't really agree with your timeline either, there's literally no groundswell for any revolution to take place, let alone in 20 years time. Bogan beach going sydneysiders not withstanding from the argument.



Well yeah, but consider; we have to breed really well to spring from homo whatever, that a small blip of a few centuries is hardly relevant




Specifically Russians if history is to repeat itself.




Actually Russia from a fundamental monarchy to the Bolsheviks seizing power initially against the populist vote and in a relatively short time all things considered, becoming one of the pre-eminent powers globally. 1905 to the 1940's and propelling into the USSR and threatening the USA. All as a faux communist into totalitarian state.

well you outright said it! that's why i asked...

i'd love to try that lamb!!!

i dunno about the revolution thing. the climate in europe certainly is interesting! how long until we see that here?

 

[Yawkey way]

The elephants in the room are largely unrestrained population growth and wealth distribution.

Just take a look at population figures from 1920 and the breakdown by country, race etc. then figure out wealth distribution post WW1. Now take a look at the population figures today together with birth rates etc and wealth distribution.

This is clearly not something you can solve by jamming a few million people into Europe, Australia etc.

The way I see it is that we need to find a solution that raises living standards in poor countries as we know birth rates largely decrease as wealth rises. The $64,000 dollar question is how do we that, the UN have had a variety of money making schemes over the years but most countries see through them and aren’t giving up rights to offshore resources, patents etc or paying arbitrary billions into funds administered by unelected UN bureaucrats for climate change etc.

I’m pretty convinced that unfortunately only war or something like antibiotics failing will change things, who knows I have been watching the bee numbers decline with interest and now I read it’s insects in general. I watched a doco where they showed a fairly sizeable area of orchards in China being hand pollinated. I turned on fox flipping channels today and I’m pretty sure that I heard them discussing how the poor in the US were wealthy compared to the standard of living in many countries, then I compare that to the new green get your free everything deal so many dem candidates are pushing.

That’s a gulf that won’t be easily bridged and could apply equally to the gulf between wealthy and poor countries.

 

[VDS66]

I say this without really much education in economics but I do believe one of the issues we have is far too strict definitions of things like "capitalism, communism, socialism etc.." largely because I think that all these models seem to be lacking in some way or another.

Capitalism by itself as a concept is fine in that it is important for the incentive of personal profit to exist. Development of new and better products and systems is generally a positive thing which a communist system absolutely fails to nurture and in many ways restricts. Look up the story of the creator of Tetris for a perfect example of how this can be a bad thing. However capitalistic tendencies are horribly unregulated which results in the common worker simply being exploited enmasse so a minority can profit heavily or key infrastructure sold off to private hands when it should absolutely be handled by the government. Energy* and prisons are two examples that I do not believe should never be privately run.

*solar being a caveat due to it really being a mass crowd owned system.

For someone who claims to be uneducated, that's a pretty good summary.

Capitalism is great, problem is the greed aspect. And money flows towards profits and evolving new markets due to the need for eternal growth in consumption to fuel profits.

Communism breeds complacency and as you say stagnates because of the lack of competition.

That's why i advocate a balance of socialism and capitalism.


The markets, left to their own devices gives us the GFC and inequality.

Free markets per se is a myth perpetuated by the elites who have a vested interest in deregulation and their ability to trample over everyone and everything in pursuit of profits.

Truth is that all markets are regulated to an extent. Unfortunately the regulation is almost always influenced by the rich and powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

The problem with both systems is the corruption that accompanies absolute power.

 

[StFly]

well you outright said it! that's why i asked...

i'd love to try that lamb!!!

i dunno about the revolution thing. the climate in europe certainly is interesting! how long until we see that here?

In response to "overpopulation is an issue" type posts. Short of another health scare turning to plague potential, humanity really has not had another "threat" to such things outside of the two world wars, so the caveat given recent Indo-Pak tensions, bombings, and military movements into sovereign nations is trending to war. Given India houses what, a trillion people? And Pakistan really can't compete on even footing, this leads one to include allies and posit if a conflict was to erupt in the region, war of the "mainland" of civilisation is inevitable into WW3.

And nothing culls a population like world war, have you not seen how many died in WW2?

I liken revolution to France in a way. There, multiculturalism failed spectacularly where martial law was and is required, there is a tension, there is a swell, but there is obviously no backing for the populace to rebel against establishment. Zero. Nothing. People simply remark there is beauty, but it wears a face that everyone hates something and you are unwanted.

If say France falls then you have reason to say Europe is practically dead, it's a matter of how long until the fracture is terminal and agreements fail as unilaterally there is no confidence to continue mixing given England postponing leaving, Ireland partially then going to do its own thing and the region destabilises so people move more agressively to shore up which impacts the populace further.

As the region is still solid, provide the Indo-Pak conflict peters out into a border skirmish with some precursors, there is nothing to indicate any revolution in the next century or more.

Braver man than I to try that lamb, you have my kudos.

 

[gringo2011]

In response to "overpopulation is an issue" type posts. Short of another health scare turning to plague potential, humanity really has not had another "threat" to such things outside of the two world wars, so the caveat given recent Indo-Pak tensions, bombings, and military movements into sovereign nations is trending to war. Given India houses what, a trillion people? And Pakistan really can't compete on even footing, this leads one to include allies and posit if a conflict was to erupt in the region, war of the "mainland" of civilisation is inevitable into WW3.

And nothing culls a population like world war, have you not seen how many died in WW2?

I liken revolution to France in a way. There, multiculturalism failed spectacularly where martial law was and is required, there is a tension, there is a swell, but there is obviously no backing for the populace to rebel against establishment. Zero. Nothing. People simply remark there is beauty, but it wears a face that everyone hates something and you are unwanted.

If say France falls then you have reason to say Europe is practically dead, it's a matter of how long until the fracture is terminal and agreements fail as unilaterally there is no confidence to continue mixing given England postponing leaving, Ireland partially then going to do its own thing and the region destabilises so people move more agressively to shore up which impacts the populace further.

As the region is still solid, provide the Indo-Pak conflict peters out into a border skirmish with some precursors, there is nothing to indicate any revolution in the next century or more.

Braver man than I to try that lamb, you have my kudos.

The EU operates much like the US where business is supported over the populace. I know French people living here who complain about how hard it was there. One was an electrician, he was getting no work and was as good as 20% employed. Romanian or Polish guys would come in a team, sleep in a van and do the same work that would cost 1200 euros for 200 euros and head home with a heap of money for Romania. Another had a law and commerce degree and said there just aren't enough boomers retiring for the kids coming out of study so you end up doing another degree hoping the next one might get something. He ended up living 50km outside Paris and training in everyday to make coffee for tourists, it cost everything he earned to pay rent and eat sharing with another mate in a one bedroom flat. He moved home to the country saved a bit of money, came here backpacking and works here labouring. He reckon every one he knows has given up on ever owning a house or getting a decent job.

The immigrants cop all the flack but then that life looks good compared to real poverty so they are happy to come. The French who feel like they are having a shit life blame the immigrants for taking the jobs. It's how it works every where. When times are tough the governments blame a scape goat rather than themselves for selling everything off and providing nothing but a slipstream for global companies to have free reign.

 

[VDS66]

The EU operates much like the US where business is supported over the populace. I know French people living here who complain about how hard it was there. One was an electrician, he was getting no work and was as good as 20% employed. Romanian or Polish guys would come in a team, sleep in a van and do the same work that would cost 1200 euros for 200 euros and head home with a heap of money for Romania. Another had a law and commerce degree and said there just aren't enough boomers retiring for the kids coming out of study so you end up doing another degree hoping the next one might get something. He ended up living 50km outside Paris and training in everyday to make coffee for tourists, it cost everything he earned to pay rent and eat sharing with another mate in a one bedroom flat. He moved home to the country saved a bit of money, came here backpacking and works here labouring. He reckon every one he knows has given up on ever owning a house or getting a decent job.

The immigrants cop all the flack but then that life looks good compared to real poverty so they are happy to come. The French who feel like they are having a shit life blame the immigrants for taking the jobs. It's how it works every where. When times are tough the governments blame a scape goat rather than themselves for selling everything off and providing nothing but a slipstream for global companies to have free reign.

I get all horny when you speak like this...

 

[Dr Spaceman]

The elephants in the room are largely unrestrained population growth and wealth distribution.

You have some supporters

 

[gringo2011]

You have some supporters

Why is the one on the left thrusting her arms? It's just fortunate that they don't want to breed voluntarily.

 

[Drake Huggins]

Understand your theory but if we did spread it evenly, the reality is at the very least we would see a return to some semblance of middle class
As opposed to 2% of the worlds population controlling over 90% of the worlds wealth!

It's not a lack of resources. It's a distribution problem. Always has been. Always will be while greedy campaigners exist. The UN released a report in 1953 telling us overpopulation would cripple the world when the population reached 4 billion. Guess what? I you know the rest.

 

[Yawkey way]

You have some supporters

That is truly amazing doc where did you find it.

I don’t know which one is scarier but I’m going with the arm thrusting glazed eye “ that’s true” one. I haven’t seen anyone as nutty as that since the woman who claimed to be living off the suns energy, then broke down in tears about the killing of lobsters.

Absolute gold.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No more strange than asking if someone actually wants the genocide of several million and not expecting a response belittling your scope of expected replies.


Well yeah, but consider; we have to breed really well to spring from homo whatever, that a small blip of a few centuries is hardly relevant




Specifically Russians if history is to repeat itself.




Actually Russia from a fundamental monarchy to the Bolsheviks seizing power initially against the populist vote and in a relatively short time all things considered, becoming one of the pre-eminent powers globally. 1905 to the 1940's and propelling into the USSR and threatening the USA. All as a faux communist into totalitarian state.

If we want to evolve, the evolved characteristics need to be the survival traits.
We are doing our utmost to prevent delicate breeds from dying out by using advanced medical techniques, which essentially puts evolution on hold.
Kylie Jenner ( the example that keeps on giving ) is more likely to breed than your typical child genius these days, which means that its good that evolution is on hold.

If the idea of the Russian Revolution was to become a global power and be ruled over by a bunch of arseholes than yes it was a success.
If the idea of the Russian Revolution was “Peace, Land and Bread to the Masses ” I'd call it a total failure.
They did manage to decrease the population though.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's not a lack of resources. It's a distribution problem. Always has been. Always will be while greedy campaigners exist. The UN released a report in 1953 telling us overpopulation would cripple the world when the population reached 4 billion. Guess what? I you know the rest.

That's part of it.
But the world is finite.
Resources are finite.
How are you going to convince people to produce/give food to others if money isn't involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Its big , so people take the approach its infinite because its really big.
Indians used to think the Ganges would absorb anything. Throw it in the Ganges and Ganges will take care of it.
If enough people pissed into the ocean it would end up a high amount of piss. Its just a matter of how much.

 

[gringo2011]

If we want to evolve, the evolved characteristics need to be the survival traits.
We are doing our utmost to prevent delicate breeds from dying out by using advanced medical techniques, which essentially puts evolution on hold.
Kylie Jenner ( the example that keeps on giving ) is more likely to breed than your typical child genius these days, which means that its good that evolution is on hold.

If the idea of the Russian Revolution was to become a global power and be ruled over by a bunch of arseholes than yes it was a success.
If the idea of the Russian Revolution was “Peace, Land and Bread to the Masses ” I'd call it a total failure.
They did manage to decrease the population though.

That's unfortunately true. My wife has a friend who is a specialist surgical anaesthetist, he's had 3 kids and claims he's trying to balance the gene pool, he reckons the idiots are out breeding normal people about 10 to 1.

 

[VDS66]

It's not a lack of resources. It's a distribution problem. Always has been. Always will be while greedy campaigners exist. The UN released a report in 1953 telling us overpopulation would cripple the world when the population reached 4 billion. Guess what? I you know the rest.

Correct. Fake scarcity.

 

[St Muir]

The elephants in the room are largely unrestrained population growth and wealth distribution.

Just take a look at population figures from 1920 and the breakdown by country, race etc. then figure out wealth distribution post WW1. Now take a look at the population figures today together with birth rates etc and wealth distribution.

This is clearly not something you can solve by jamming a few million people into Europe, Australia etc.

The way I see it is that we need to find a solution that raises living standards in poor countries as we know birth rates largely decrease as wealth rises. The $64,000 dollar question is how do we that, the UN have had a variety of money making schemes over the years but most countries see through them and aren’t giving up rights to offshore resources, patents etc or paying arbitrary billions into funds administered by unelected UN bureaucrats for climate change etc.

I’m pretty convinced that unfortunately only war or something like antibiotics failing will change things, who knows I have been watching the bee numbers decline with interest and now I read it’s insects in general. I watched a doco where they showed a fairly sizeable area of orchards in China being hand pollinated. I turned on fox flipping channels today and I’m pretty sure that I heard them discussing how the poor in the US were wealthy compared to the standard of living in many countries, then I compare that to the new green get your free everything deal so many dem candidates are pushing.

That’s a gulf that won’t be easily bridged and could apply equally to the gulf between wealthy and poor countries.

I’ve got a few million ants I can donate...Nature is stirring though. I’m seeing trees that used to flower in late Spring, now flowering in mid to late Summer. Varieties of birds diminishing with a few species dominant. Reptiles that used to be in huge numbers now rarely sighted (croc excepted). Ants now farming plants they never went near before. Dry storms in SE Queensland, it goes on.
We’ve got a whole lot of crap coming our way that our old ways of dealing with won’t work.
I think we evolve or die out. Maybe both.
On a slightly more positive note, population growth has slowed and predicted to bottom out.
On a far more positive note, saints fans are far better equipped to deal with insurmountable problems than most.

 

[gringo2011]

I’ve got a few million ants I can donate...Nature is stirring though. I’m seeing trees that used to flower in late Spring, now flowering in mid to late Summer. Varieties of birds diminishing with a few species dominant. Reptiles that used to be in huge numbers now rarely sighted (croc excepted). Ants now farming plants they never went near before. Dry storms in SE Queensland, it goes on.
We’ve got a whole lot of crap coming our way that our old ways of dealing with won’t work.
I think we evolve or die out. Maybe both.
On a slightly more positive note, population growth has slowed and predicted to bottom out.
On a far more positive note, saints fans are far better equipped to deal with insurmountable problems than most.

32 degree Melbourne weather at the start of the footy season is pretty odd too.

 

[St Muir]

That's unfortunately true. My wife has a friend who is a specialist surgical anaesthetist, he's had 3 kids and claims he's trying to balance the gene pool, he reckons the idiots are out breeding normal people about 10 to 1.

The baby bonus has to be one of the more cynical and irresponsible decisions made by the Howard Government. I still can’t believe that he wasn’t torn apart for that one.
Having said that, this subject is incredibly fraught. Before you know it, you can find yourself in close proximity to the sort of arguments presented by the Hitlers of this world. Einstein and Hawking are just two examples of people unlikely to make the cut of selective population control.
Much easier to keep the focus on total numbers. We are seeing dramatic falls in birth rates around the world, as medical and health services improve in poorer countries. Like many human responses to problems, it’s a double edged sword.

 

[gringo2011]

The baby bonus has to be one of the more cynical and irresponsible decisions made by the Howard Government. I still can’t believe that he wasn’t torn apart for that one.
Having said that, this subject is incredibly fraught. Before you know it, you can find yourself in close proximity to the sort of arguments presented by the Hitlers of this world. Einstein and Hawking are just two examples of people unlikely to make the cut of selective population control.
Much easier to keep the focus on total numbers. We are seeing dramatic falls in birth rates around the world, as medical and health services improve in poorer countries. Like many human responses to problems, it’s a double edged sword.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to judge the value of a life just because the parents are 17 year old ice addicts. Doesn't mean the kid won't grow up to cure cancer. The kid is starting a fair way back in the race but why does someone else have the right to stop the parents? A rich person doesn't want to have kids because it takes an income out for a year and sets them up for $30,000 a year in school fees and the rest.

 

[Sir Skid]

karaoke for mod