h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, it brings it back into my mind. I'm going to be humming it all evening mentally. Probably have a dream about eating dirt, too.
(a bit normal - for a second there it looked like it was going to turn into another "What's Wrong With Americans". Phew.)

*raises eyebrows - wide eyed*
Maybe that was the purpose of me showing up!
*another one bites the dust*

You are a hard one to please az, not that there's is anything wrong with that
Since you asked;
I do not come to "ask" often.
I am not subscribed to it.
I just pop in from time to time.
I commit to reading the backlog when I do.

Interested parties could continue the topic, I did not find it boring.

i was just reading the backlog two pages and found this "Fast Food: eat eat eat and get fat fat fat and have a freakin' heart attack!!!!!" somewhere on the internet i read that the statistics are that for the amount of food in the world each person can have 10 pounds a week, but the average american is eating 17 pounds a week so we are loosing food, but i assume the counted all the countries with poverty in the it, and they probably only eat a few pounds a week

hi abbi,

I'm hard to please? In what way?

You see, I was reading this thread yesterday and saw that Amoeba had posted several times basically saying the same thing - that population growth and poverty are linked. Then he lost his temper with Fnord and accused him of trolling. And when I asked Amoeba if there was a point to him repeatedly saying the same thing he accused me of not having read the backlog and was very insulting, calling me ignorant and illiterate. And so I then decided not to read his postings any further because I don't believe it is necessary, and it certainly isn't constructive, for people to become abusive.

I didn't say I found the topic boring. I said I hadn't found the backlog interesting (and in fact, I do read the backlog every day). The discussion didn't really seem to be getting anywhere. But yes, certainly interested parties, including Amoeba, could continue with the topic. And I *would* still read Amoeba's postings, of course, but I think I would no longer respond to him because I don't like being insulted by fellow researchers. Is this what makes me hard to please?



az

hi universe,

Not only do Americans (and most people from other prosperous countries) over-eat, but excess food is destroyed rather than sent to the places where food is lacking.

And the thing is, it would not actually help the starving masses (except very temporarily) to just be fed. You know that old saying - 'give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach the man to fish and you feed him for life'. I'm not saying that we shouldn't send aid to people who need it, but it would be more effective to educate as well. Which I know is slowly beginning to happen, but I also think it is a mistake to impose our culture on others. Anyhow, this is a massive issue.

So for many people the meaning of life is getting enough food and water to survive another day.

It's quite amazing how strong our innate will to live is. I mean, you would think that it would be easier for many of these starving people to just lay down and die, but they keep fighting to survive even though every waking moment is sheer agony. This is something that both impresses and humbles me.

az

Ok well in regard to waht that last comment and i do not mean to challenge you in anyway, but recently i discoverd a few facts about 'balancing out the resources' of the east and west,

1) If we were to balance the resources used in a AVERAGE western household we would need another 2 earths supply of minerals, fuel and such

2) If we were to balance according to the USA average house hold we would need another 4 earths of supplys to susstain the world we live in.

3) and if we did balance the resources out EQUALLY between every person in the entire world then we would each have the same amout of waht and 'average' Indian farm would produce from rice crops.

Now even though there is alot of averages in there, we must admit it is a impossabilty that anyone would ever give up there luxerys to make the rest of the world happy all because
power = money = power
I would adnmit myself that i would not give my lifestyle up and that is being honest, so everyone ask yourself the same question -
would you give it all up?

hi Nothing,

I don't mind being challenged at all. I was just making a point earlier about not turning challenges into personal attacks.

I remember hearing something similar many years ago - something like, that if all the money in the world were divided equally everyone would end up with about $10.

No, I wouldn't give up my lifestyle. But if by giving up *some* things I could truly help the world, then I would be willing to make a few sacrifices.

Anyhow, I don't think that 'equality for all' is a possible, or even desirable, situation. But trying to balance things out somewhat seems like a good idea to me.

az

wel lhow would you balance it out?
i think that the debts that the countries have is just pointless and kinda cruel that their/we are suppose to be helping them yet we still want the £25 mill back we lent them back!

also kinda makes me laugh that we gave them money for factories to make them money and get them out of debt yet now there being told to destroy it because of global warming thats a lil cruel dont cha think?

az- do you really think equality for all would be a bad idea? i think as an ultimate goal it would be an ideal situation. unfortunately, as the world stands it wouldn't be plausible.

what i mean is, the world doesn't have enough financially, medically, food-wise, etc. to sustain everyone equally in a worthwhile way. like you said, if we all split the money everyone would only have $10.00

I DO agree however that balancing things out as best as possible at the present time is a good idea.

the problem is, in my opinion, that the only way to this "ideal sharing" is through an initial phase of capitalism, that unfortunately further divides rich from poor. the reasoning behind this thought is, "you have to make money before you can share it."

fortunately, i think in a wierd twisted way, civilization (as messed up as it seems) seems to be heading that way. for example, as a society, special interest groups are becoming more and more common. and these special interest groups are usually formed to "save" something in some way or another. the only reason these things can start is because of excess financial resources. and these groups at least attempt to "even" something out. is this making any sense to anybody else at the moment?

my only concern is that many special interest groups aim towards things that to me, seem rather unimportant in the big scheme of things.

agree? disagree?

Jibbly

Nothing.....,
Good morning, You have asked of us what we would give up! And you appear to have given us a choice....luxuries, lifestyle, all.

Share out the EXCESS, giving everyone THEIR enough. And some peoples ENOUGH is too much. IS it the "greed" mindset which we need to address?

The resources are as they are and unless you can CREATE more, we must balance out what we have.

When you have enough, anything more is too much. Enough is the keyword. Who will decide.

If MR Gill Bates, the well known khizz-wid, were to say... All I need is the comfort and freedom that the illusion of my wealth can bring me. Everything that I desire on a day to day basis...... a bit like a "float". And if he got all his buddies to do the same, and they, their buddies, and they, theirs etc.etc. It should release as many resources as you need. And it will be self perpetuating with everyone realising that they will ALWAYS have enough. As opposed to some having too much and too many having too little, and far too many having nothing. Power then changes from being money to being GIVING. It, money, then becomes irrelevent.

Just don't forget what it is for.

Hey, take it all and bring peace and happiness and harmony and ..... to the world.

it concerns me that there are different charritys about that all advertise to get money.. its kinda not right that there competing against each other to 'help others'

Oh, dear. He's followed me here.

who?

Man from Mars. His consistantly abusive and blindsighted stance forced me to unsubscribe to the "God:Fact or Fiction?" thread, which used to be one of my favourites.

o0o i thought you was on about me,

Not at all, Nothing. (Sorry about not replying for ages, I had to make a new Journal Entry, so by now you're probably offline. But, no, I enjoy listening to your views.)

lol its ok im a comp freak, im always online, i have my own lil a*s groove in my chair,

yeah i just did sumthink about the whole Townie Vs Goth on my journal
its a lil conplicated.

We have the same saga in my town, except here it's called "the Goths/Casuals/Skaters/Grungers vs. the Pikeys/Townies". And it tends to be very, very violent. Only a few months ago I was walking around in our own territory, but because my lot (the first group) are so massively outdone in both numbers and aggression by the Pikeys/Townies, nowhere is actually safe, so I got beaten up rather brutally for breaking the no-eye-contact-and-keep-walking-fast rule.

yeah its geting worse here too, it was a quiet lil village but it aint no mur, you cant walk anywhere dressed in any form of black clothing coz you jsut get started on.
well i use the word 'townies' becuase of the universally known meaning,
we have 3 'speices'
Mosher/Goth = black baggy clothes and such
Scaly = AKA townie (basball caps...and bats..)
townie = the people that have 'daddys debit card'
it sounds real streotypical i know but that bascilly all there is
(i have to learn to spell someday)

It probably does sound stereotypical to any oldies around, but it's true. You have to join one group. It was never a quite town, though. The war's been going on for centuries, because there're two towns right next to eachother - one, mine, is pretty upmarket and rich, and the other's really down and out and dole-y.