Christianity and Environmentalism shouldn't be incompatible

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

When I see Christians, especially of the evangelical variety, declare that 'people should come before the environment' as a response against environmental regulations, or in support of a new pipeline, it's a head scratcher for me. Clean water for drinking, clean air for breathing, the fish caught from the sea that we eat, how are we supposed to maintain these things without protecting the environment?

I don't see this as an issue of putting the environment before people, but rather putting the environment before greed and before the disregard for other people. Environmentalism needs to be divorced from the left/right spectrum of politics. It shouldn't be considered leftist to care about the future of this planet, or about the poor across the world that are less insulated from the effects of climate change than those of us with means. These are purportedly Christian values too.

Many fundamentalist Christians are convinced that the rapture and Armageddon are just around the corner. So when looked at through that exceedingly short-sighted lens, it is utterly pointless to save a world that God is about to smite to smithereens anyway.

A good chunk of "proper Christian values" left the common discourse once it hit mainstream and took a big chunk of Rome for its own personal fiefdom while taking donations from all their flock for generations to clothe themselves in gold and marble their halls.

I'd rather see religion divorced from politics and science altogether. That way they can all do their jobs without getting in each other's way. But that's not gonna happen as they are all inextricably knotted in with each other.

jklinders:
Many fundamentalist Christians are convinced that the rapture and Armageddon are just around the corner. So when looked at through that exceedingly short-sighted lens, it is utterly pointless to save a world that God is about to smite to smithereens anyway.

Sure, but even if we all agreed humanity only had a year left on this earth, shouldn't we all be trying our best to take care of the most vulnerable in that time? The idea that 'we have little time left so fuck it, might as well loot everything for what it's worth' is about as antithetical to Jesus' teachings as I can think.

If there was definitely only a year left many would be like,"whatever, God will take care of them soon." That is the fatalism that apocalyptic religion imparts in people.
Something somewhere got seriously twisted up especially when you look at Americans and their view on religion. Jesus would have been up on charges of being a communist during the McCarthy era. All those megachurches which are essentially shopping malls which Jesus would have tossed around just like the temple in the Gospels. I don't see a lot of love and mutual respect. A lot of judgement and demanding that their ideals get preferential treatment while they cherry pick which verses are important to them at whichever moment.

It's gotten to the point where I just want to see the whole institution of all organized religion burn. Believe what you want in your own time, but do it at home and don't preach at me. Don't demand tax breaks and stop trying to influence public policy over a dusty old pack of fairy tales passed down by goat fucking herders. A lot of people would be a lot happier.

Religion is like a buffet, people pick and choose what they want from it and if they ever get stuck, well "god work in mysterious way".

Although there's plenty of religious people who do care about the environment. I think we sometime look at it backward, it's not that religious people have a certain viewpoint, it's that people who have nothing else to go for them except religion have a certain viewpoint. Religion is easy to pick up and let people define themselves, unlike education and such which require a good deal of effort to pick up.

Simple people are easy to manipulate, this makes them particularly easy for religion to entrap same for corporate interest.

Evangelicalism is a cult that's hit the mainstream with the prosperity gospel. They applaud the USA's move to put our embassy in Jerusalem because "Jews take back Jerusalem" is one step on the timeline to Armageddon. Next comes a big attack to destroy Israel. Used to be the Soviets that we're supposed to cause that, probably Iran now, and by some miracle God would stop the attack. Kinda.

Like, now I understand why the church went after heretics with sword and fire. Don't condone it, but I get the impulse.

jklinders:
If there was definitely only a year left many would be like,"whatever, God will take care of them soon." That is the fatalism that apocalyptic religion imparts in people.
Something somewhere got seriously twisted up especially when you look at Americans and their view on religion. Jesus would have been up on charges of being a communist during the McCarthy era. All those megachurches which are essentially shopping malls which Jesus would have tossed around just like the temple in the Gospels. I don't see a lot of love and mutual respect. A lot of judgement and demanding that their ideals get preferential treatment while they cherry pick which verses are important to them at whichever moment.

It's gotten to the point where I just want to see the whole institution of all organized religion burn. Believe what you want in your own time, but do it at home and don't preach at me. Don't demand tax breaks and stop trying to influence public policy over a dusty old pack of fairy tales passed down by goat fucking herders. A lot of people would be a lot happier.

Of course the whole idea that they will know when the end will be and behaving that way at all goes against what it states in the Bible to begin with since it says no man will know. If they choose to behave that way at any time, especially the "end times"
they would then be condemning themselves, as it seems in the Bible Greed is the one thing that Jesus seems to have the least tolerance for.

Mark 13:32 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Jux:
When I see Christians, especially of the evangelical variety, declare that 'people should come before the environment' as a response against environmental regulations, or in support of a new pipeline, it's a head scratcher for me. Clean water for drinking, clean air for breathing, the fish caught from the sea that we eat, how are we supposed to maintain these things without protecting the environment?

I don't see this as an issue of putting the environment before people, but rather putting the environment before greed and before the disregard for other people. Environmentalism needs to be divorced from the left/right spectrum of politics. It shouldn't be considered leftist to care about the future of this planet, or about the poor across the world that are less insulated from the effects of climate change than those of us with means. These are purportedly Christian values too.

Yes, you are correct. Reality is though there are plenty of "fake Christians" who have not even read the bible to understand that Greed is a bad thing. Many claim to be Christian for status and social reasons without actually being Christian at all, nor do they actually hold " Christian values", as actual Christian Values according to the Bible would not allow them to ignore those less fortunate without helping them or allow themselves to become wealthy due to Jesus calling for them to give their possessions and wealth away in order to be allowed into Heaven at all. How many of those claiming to be Christians have actually done that? Not very many.

A common concept that people derive from... well most religions, it that if you do the "right" thing you will be rewarded. 72 virgins and all that. You can even see that in the way people talk about Capitalism. If you work hard, you will receive your just rewards. If you aren't receiving those rewards, clearly you don't work hard enough. If one of these televangelists doesn't have heaps of money, clearly he isn't doing the "right" thing. If your employee only earn a little compared to you, that means he's incompetent compared to you.

Sidenote: I do find it funny how the conservatives aren't the ones conserving the environment.

trunkage:
A common concept that people derive from... well most religions, it that if you do the "right" thing you will be rewarded. 72 virgins and all that. You can even see that in the way people talk about Capitalism. If you work hard, you will receive your just rewards. If you aren't receiving those rewards, clearly you don't work hard enough. If one of these televangelists doesn't have heaps of money, clearly he isn't doing the "right" thing. If your employee only earn a little compared to you, that means he's incompetent compared to you.

Sidenote: I do find it funny how the conservatives aren't the ones conserving the environment.

Of course the Bible says just the opposite in terms of worldly rewards, and that their rewards await them in heaven, and Christians of course would know this if they just read the book that supposedly contains the word of God and their instructions that must be followed if they want to make it there. So if a preacher has wealth, according to the bible, he is not of god, and is not welcome in the kingdom of heaven.

John 2:16 For all that is in the world-the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions-is not from the Father but is from the world

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

It was quite clear on wealth and greed, it is one of subjects Jesus directly dealt with the most. If they are an actual Christian, they would know this already.

It is all throughout the bible however, so hard for any actual Christian to miss it.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/greed

Christianity should not be incompatible with a lot of things, but for a religion named after Jesus Christ, it sure is very cruel and unforgiving.

Jesus taught to love and forgive and help others no matter who they are.

Of course Christianity shouldn't be incompatible with environmentalism. But people who oppose environmentalism are eager and willing to use Christianity to justify their position, even when it's completely illogical.

To wit: politicians like Scott Pruitt - an impressively corrupt person in his own right - exploit a shady translation of a single passage of Genesis, from which they draw the message that it is mankind's divine right to subjugate nature and exploit its resources, because God gave mankind dominion over the Earth to do with as he pleases. Burn as much coal as you like; God put it there for you to dig up and use. It's yours by right.

This frequently cuts alongside another uniquely American reinterpretation of Christian morality; the prosperity gospel. According to this interpretation of the Bible, God rewards faith with prosperity - physical health and material wealth. The faithful are rewarded; the unfaithful are punished. In a perverse twist of logic, because faith is rewarded with prosperity, the most prosperous - i.e. the most wealthy - must therefore be the most faithful, because if they were immoral people, they would be poor. Religious worship is characterised as an investment; prove your faith - usually by donating money to a preacher - and God will reward you with prosperity later in life. All of this is, naturally, a giant con with no basis in scripture. But it makes a very basic sort of sense, serving as a theodicy for people who don't know what the word theodicy means. It's no coincidence that Trump is a fan of both.

I would chalk it all up to standard batshit religious conservatism, but I have met many Christians in my life who were good and honest people. I think the problem is not belief in God; the problem is America. American Christianity is ill and feverish. They've confused what they desire with what they deserve. And they're being strung along by this unholy trifecta of corruption between the corporations that want to exploit the Earth for profit, the politicians who let them do it, and the preachers who try to justify it. It's enough to give Martin Luther a fucking stroke.

bastardofmelbourne:
Of course Christianity shouldn't be incompatible with environmentalism. But people who oppose environmentalism are eager and willing to use Christianity to justify their position, even when it's completely illogical.

To wit: politicians like Scott Pruitt - an impressively corrupt person in his own right - exploit a shady translation of a single passage of Genesis, from which they draw the message that it is mankind's divine right to subjugate nature and exploit its resources, because God gave mankind dominion over the Earth to do with as he pleases. Burn as much coal as you like; God put it there for you to dig up and use. It's yours by right.

This frequently cuts alongside another uniquely American reinterpretation of Christian morality; the prosperity gospel. According to this interpretation of the Bible, God rewards faith with prosperity - physical health and material wealth. The faithful are rewarded; the unfaithful are punished. In a perverse twist of logic, because faith is rewarded with prosperity, the most prosperous - i.e. the most wealthy - must therefore be the most faithful, because if they were immoral people, they would be poor. Religious worship is characterised as an investment; prove your faith - usually by donating money to a preacher - and God will reward you with prosperity later in life. All of this is, naturally, a giant con with no basis in scripture. But it makes a very basic sort of sense, serving as a theodicy for people who don't know what the word theodicy means. It's no coincidence that Trump is a fan of both.

I would chalk it all up to standard batshit religious conservatism, but I have met many Christians in my life who were good and honest people. I think the problem is not belief in God; the problem is America. American Christianity is ill and feverish. They've confused what they desire with what they deserve. And they're being strung along by this unholy trifecta of corruption between the corporations that want to exploit the Earth for profit, the politicians who let them do it, and the preachers who try to justify it. It's enough to give Martin Luther a fucking stroke.

Considering the Crusades existed before the US did, I would not blame America for Christianity's faults.

If anything, America is Christianity's fault. My country would be a lot better without it.

So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

We should organize an economic system in which "losing jobs" is a good or neutral thing, not a catastrophic ordeal.

Seanchaidh:

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

We should organize an economic system in which "losing jobs" is a good or neutral thing, not a catastrophic ordeal.

Since when is losing people's jobs a good thing?

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

I am not exactly sure what Christianity has to do with losing jobs, but helping the environment does not mean we have to lose jobs, in fact helping the environment can actually create jobs.

How is it "burdensome" to make sure we have clean air, water and soil to Human life on earth? It is not burdensome, it is necessary, as we are not being given more earths so we have to take care of the one we have or we could cease to exist. Should we exist as grasshoppers destroying everything in our path and then move on when we use it all up? It is not sustainable to ruin what little space and resources we have been given.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

I am not exactly sure what Christianity has to do with losing jobs, but helping the environment does not mean we have to lose jobs, in fact helping the environment can actually create jobs.

How is it "burdensome" to make sure we have clean air, water and soil to Human life on earth? It is not burdensome, it is necessary, as we are not being given more earths so we have to take care of the one we have or we could cease to exist. Should we exist as grasshoppers destroying everything in our path and then move on when we use it all up? It is not sustainable to ruin what little space and resources we have been given.

It's not burdensome but I do feel like you shouldn't give businessnes so much red tape or else it'll make jobs dissappear.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

I am not exactly sure what Christianity has to do with losing jobs, but helping the environment does not mean we have to lose jobs, in fact helping the environment can actually create jobs.

How is it "burdensome" to make sure we have clean air, water and soil to Human life on earth? It is not burdensome, it is necessary, as we are not being given more earths so we have to take care of the one we have or we could cease to exist. Should we exist as grasshoppers destroying everything in our path and then move on when we use it all up? It is not sustainable to ruin what little space and resources we have been given.

It's not burdensome but I do feel like you shouldn't give businesses so much red tape or else it'll make jobs disappear.

They do not make jobs disappear( at least not jobs that will provide a living wage), in reality it winds up affecting profits of the 1% who already hold more than everyone else combined. In reality if you were to redistribute the stack at the end from the 1% , you would make every single person in the US wealthy.
image
http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-in-the-us-is-much-more-extreme-than-you-think-2015-6
It really is just one of the many lies they tell people to keep making their stack on the end bigger.

People wonder why their communities no longer have the resources they did before to be able to reinvest in their communities. This is why. They are not using it to create jobs anyhow, they are stockpiling it for themselves.

bastardofmelbourne:
This frequently cuts alongside another uniquely American reinterpretation of Christian morality; the prosperity gospel. According to this interpretation of the Bible, God rewards faith with prosperity - physical health and material wealth. The faithful are rewarded; the unfaithful are punished. In a perverse twist of logic, because faith is rewarded with prosperity, the most prosperous - i.e. the most wealthy - must therefore be the most faithful, because if they were immoral people, they would be poor. Religious worship is characterised as an investment; prove your faith - usually by donating money to a preacher - and God will reward you with prosperity later in life. All of this is, naturally, a giant con with no basis in scripture. But it makes a very basic sort of sense, serving as a theodicy for people who don't know what the word theodicy means. It's no coincidence that Trump is a fan of both.

I really hate those guys. It is one of the worst heresies Christianity has ever had.

Saelune:
Considering the Crusades existed before the US did, I would not blame America for Christianity's faults.

If anything, America is Christianity's fault. My country would be a lot better without it.

Crusades were not worse than regular wars at the time. Also they were all justified as some kind of defensive war, every single sanctioned crusade had some Christian ruler calling for help against nonchristian invaders.
As far as "why is Christianity bad" goes, crusades are a pretty weak argument, even if we now think that they were a bad idea overall for quite a lot of reasons.

But America and Christianity is a special story. From early on it was especially people that somehow did not really fit in their society that were sent to the colonies. From early on this included special and kind of extreme Christian sects either because they wanted to settle among their own somewhere in the wilderness or because they started to become persecuted or at least suppressed because they were seen as dangerous.
That got worse after independence due to religious freedom enshrined into law. That made the US the only place all the religious nutters that had problems with most other Christian factions found a home. Or groups that were forbidden because they had proven to be a danger for their society. Not only that, it had a low population density so that every group that wanted to be seperated from all those unfaithful and brood among themself for a couple of generations could do so and consequently becoming even more removed from Christian mainstream.
This is why we have nowadays so many special Christian groups in America.

Australia seems to have been comparably lucky. They still got troublemakers but religious conflicts were not that important anymore, so those troublemakers were mostly just criminals, politicals or losers of beginning industrialisation. And those are things that don't get carried over from generation to generation.

Seanchaidh:

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

We should organize an economic system in which "losing jobs" is a good or neutral thing, not a catastrophic ordeal.

We will be forced to in order to advance. Basic income would be the beginning, but ideally we would move away from a monetary system all together and be more "Star Trek like" in that people will be able to do what they desire to do rather than struggle to survive a meager existence.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

We should organize an economic system in which "losing jobs" is a good or neutral thing, not a catastrophic ordeal.

We will be forced to in order to advance. Basic income would be the beginning, but ideally we would move away from a monetary system all together and be more "Star Trek like" in that people will be able to do what they desire to do rather than struggle to survive a meager existence.

Basic income doesn't work. Finland just tried it and it backfired.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:
So we should lose jobs because of burdensome regulations to care for the enviorment?

I am not exactly sure what Christianity has to do with losing jobs, but helping the environment does not mean we have to lose jobs, in fact helping the environment can actually create jobs.

How is it "burdensome" to make sure we have clean air, water and soil to Human life on earth? It is not burdensome, it is necessary, as we are not being given more earths so we have to take care of the one we have or we could cease to exist. Should we exist as grasshoppers destroying everything in our path and then move on when we use it all up? It is not sustainable to ruin what little space and resources we have been given.

It's not burdensome but I do feel like you shouldn't give businessnes so much red tape or else it'll make jobs dissappear.

Name one "burdensome" regulation that actually costs jobs.

Because, in my experience, "burdensome" regulations means, "we didn't make enough profit to grow enough to satiate our stockholders, so we tossed out labor to keep profits high".

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

We should organize an economic system in which "losing jobs" is a good or neutral thing, not a catastrophic ordeal.

We will be forced to in order to advance. Basic income would be the beginning, but ideally we would move away from a monetary system all together and be more "Star Trek like" in that people will be able to do what they desire to do rather than struggle to survive a meager existence.

Basic income doesn't work. Finland just tried it and it backfired.

That's not true in the slightest. It's a two year limited trial, and the trail is coming to an end. That's it.

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:
I am not exactly sure what Christianity has to do with losing jobs, but helping the environment does not mean we have to lose jobs, in fact helping the environment can actually create jobs.

How is it "burdensome" to make sure we have clean air, water and soil to Human life on earth? It is not burdensome, it is necessary, as we are not being given more earths so we have to take care of the one we have or we could cease to exist. Should we exist as grasshoppers destroying everything in our path and then move on when we use it all up? It is not sustainable to ruin what little space and resources we have been given.

It's not burdensome but I do feel like you shouldn't give businessnes so much red tape or else it'll make jobs dissappear.

Name one "burdensome" regulation that actually costs jobs.

Because, in my experience, "burdensome" regulations means, "we didn't make enough profit to grow enough to satiate our stockholders, so we tossed out labor to keep profits high".

Example: A carbon tax would lead to job loses according to the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-15493889

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

We will be forced to in order to advance. Basic income would be the beginning, but ideally we would move away from a monetary system all together and be more "Star Trek like" in that people will be able to do what they desire to do rather than struggle to survive a meager existence.

Basic income doesn't work. Finland just tried it and it backfired.

That's not true in the slightest. It's a two year limited trial, and the trail is coming to an end. That's it.

Then why haven't they extended it? Finland can't afford to give people free money. They will go broke if they do.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

We should organize an economic system in which "losing jobs" is a good or neutral thing, not a catastrophic ordeal.

We will be forced to in order to advance. Basic income would be the beginning, but ideally we would move away from a monetary system all together and be more "Star Trek like" in that people will be able to do what they desire to do rather than struggle to survive a meager existence.

Basic income doesn't work. Finland just tried it and it backfired.

How so?
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

?It seems that there is some misinformation spreading in international media about the Finnish basic income experiment,? says Miska Simanainen, a researcher at Kela, the Finnish government agency behind the trial. ?There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018, but this is not new information,? he adds.
nstead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains.

It ran the course they intended, and they have not received the results yet, they do not expect preliminary results until 2019. Of course you have the 1% funding every attack article and ad they can on it because it would reduce their hoarding, their attacks are not based in reality.

WolvDragon:
Then why haven't they extended it? Finland can't afford to give people free money. They will go broke if they do.

because they need the results from the experiment to decide the best way to proceed. It was never intended to be extended.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

We will be forced to in order to advance. Basic income would be the beginning, but ideally we would move away from a monetary system all together and be more "Star Trek like" in that people will be able to do what they desire to do rather than struggle to survive a meager existence.

Basic income doesn't work. Finland just tried it and it backfired.

How so?
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

?It seems that there is some misinformation spreading in international media about the Finnish basic income experiment,? says Miska Simanainen, a researcher at Kela, the Finnish government agency behind the trial. ?There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018, but this is not new information,? he adds.

It ran the course they intended, and they have not received the results yet, they do not expect preliminary results until 2019. Of course you have the 1% funding every attack article and ad they can on it because it would reduce their hoarding, their attacks are not based in reality.

Even so, you can't give people who don't work free money forever, a country just can't afford to do that. Basic income sounds nice on paper, but it's not sustainable.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Basic income doesn't work. Finland just tried it and it backfired.

How so?
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

?It seems that there is some misinformation spreading in international media about the Finnish basic income experiment,? says Miska Simanainen, a researcher at Kela, the Finnish government agency behind the trial. ?There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018, but this is not new information,? he adds.

It ran the course they intended, and they have not received the results yet, they do not expect preliminary results until 2019. Of course you have the 1% funding every attack article and ad they can on it because it would reduce their hoarding, their attacks are not based in reality.

Even so, you can't give people who don't work free money forever, a country just can't afford to do that. Basic income sounds nice on paper, but it's not sustainable.

They give people who work and who do not work basic income, that is how this works. Yes, you can support an entire population on Basic income when you are a wealthy nation. Instead of having the 1% have all the resources on one end, you just distribute them more evenly. How much would every single person on that chart above have if the wealthy stack was divided across the board?

They would not be broke, that is for certain. Norway, for example, just made all of it's citizens Millionaires.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-millionaires/all-norwegians-become-crown-millionaires-in-oil-saving-landmark-idUSBREA0710U20140108

You have that backwards, wealth inequality is what is not sustainable:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

How so?
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

It ran the course they intended, and they have not received the results yet, they do not expect preliminary results until 2019. Of course you have the 1% funding every attack article and ad they can on it because it would reduce their hoarding, their attacks are not based in reality.

Even so, you can't give people who don't work free money forever, a country just can't afford to do that. Basic income sounds nice on paper, but it's not sustainable.

They give people who work and who do not work basic income, that is how this works. Yes, you can support an entire population on Basic income when you are a wealthy nation. Instead of having the 1% have all the resources on one end, you just distribute them more evenly. How much would every single person on that chart above have if the wealthy stack was divided across the board?

Then every country will go into default if they just hand people free money, even to those who work. It breeds government depency.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Even so, you can't give people who don't work free money forever, a country just can't afford to do that. Basic income sounds nice on paper, but it's not sustainable.

They give people who work and who do not work basic income, that is how this works. Yes, you can support an entire population on Basic income when you are a wealthy nation. Instead of having the 1% have all the resources on one end, you just distribute them more evenly. How much would every single person on that chart above have if the wealthy stack was divided across the board?

Then every country will go into default if they just hand people free money, even to those who work. It breeds government depency.

You are not understanding how it works. When you supply a populous with the basic necessities needed to survive, they are no longer forced to struggle just to survive and are able instead to thrive. This does not mean they will do nothing at all. This instead means that people will be able to obtain an education in the field of their choice, be able to invent and create and be a more productive member of society instead of only focus on basic necessities. This can increase your GDP, not decrease it.

Poverty reduces productivity, decreasing poverty increases productivity. how many people were prevented from being scientists, inventors, engineer or doctors because they were too poor? This solves that and allows people to move ahead of basic survival to a more advanced society.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:
They give people who work and who do not work basic income, that is how this works. Yes, you can support an entire population on Basic income when you are a wealthy nation. Instead of having the 1% have all the resources on one end, you just distribute them more evenly. How much would every single person on that chart above have if the wealthy stack was divided across the board?

Then every country will go into default if they just hand people free money, even to those who work. It breeds government depency.

You are not understanding how it works. When you supply a populous with the basic necessities needed to survive, they are no longer forced to struggle just to survive and are able instead to thrive. This does not mean they will do nothing at all. This instead means that people will be able to obtain an education in the field of their choice, be able to invent and create and be a more productive member of society instead of only focus on basic necessities. This can increase your GDP, not decrease it.

There are somethings government can't solve by just throwing free money at it. I don't want America to become like Greece if we implement a basic income.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Then every country will go into default if they just hand people free money, even to those who work. It breeds government depency.

You are not understanding how it works. When you supply a populous with the basic necessities needed to survive, they are no longer forced to struggle just to survive and are able instead to thrive. This does not mean they will do nothing at all. This instead means that people will be able to obtain an education in the field of their choice, be able to invent and create and be a more productive member of society instead of only focus on basic necessities. This can increase your GDP, not decrease it.

There are somethings government can't solve by just throwing free money at it. I don't want America to become like Greece if we implement a basic income.

Again, I think you are trying to compare two different things. Greece is trying to resort to basic income too late due to long lasting poverty due to mismanagement and corruption and lack of good economy. you would only have those issues if you wait until it is too late, not act while the nation is prosperous. Greece has been in default for a very long time and millions are suffering for it. If you wish to have a smooth transition to our automated future, you act ahead of time and transition slowly, not wait until your capitalism crashed and burned then try to implement it as a last resort.

Greece is the future if the US waits too long and the automated revolution arrives before they have support systems in place to prop up the economy.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

You are not understanding how it works. When you supply a populous with the basic necessities needed to survive, they are no longer forced to struggle just to survive and are able instead to thrive. This does not mean they will do nothing at all. This instead means that people will be able to obtain an education in the field of their choice, be able to invent and create and be a more productive member of society instead of only focus on basic necessities. This can increase your GDP, not decrease it.

There are somethings government can't solve by just throwing free money at it. I don't want America to become like Greece if we implement a basic income.

Again, I think you are trying to compare two different things. Greece is trying to resort to basic income too late due to long lasting poverty due to mismanagement and corruption and lack of good economy. you would only have those issues if you wait until it is too late, not act while the nation is prosperous. Greece has been in default for a very long time and millions are suffering for it. If you wish to have a smooth transition to our automated future, you act ahead of time and transition slowly, not wait until your capitalism crashed and burned then try to implement it as a last resort.

There are somethings socialism doesn't work and basic income hasn't worked out yet. Greece is gonna suffer more if they go into basic income.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

There are somethings government can't solve by just throwing free money at it. I don't want America to become like Greece if we implement a basic income.

Again, I think you are trying to compare two different things. Greece is trying to resort to basic income too late due to long lasting poverty due to mismanagement and corruption and lack of good economy. you would only have those issues if you wait until it is too late, not act while the nation is prosperous. Greece has been in default for a very long time and millions are suffering for it. If you wish to have a smooth transition to our automated future, you act ahead of time and transition slowly, not wait until your capitalism crashed and burned then try to implement it as a last resort.

There are somethings socialism doesn't work and basic income hasn't worked out yet. Greece is gonna suffer more if they go into basic income.

I added to above posts. sry on a tablet atm so not easiest to type. There is no evidence basic income doesn't work as of yet. Why do you believe socialism doesn't work? it is working very well for nations such as norway when they made every citizen a millionaire.

our automated future is coming whether we are ready or not.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

Again, I think you are trying to compare two different things. Greece is trying to resort to basic income too late due to long lasting poverty due to mismanagement and corruption and lack of good economy. you would only have those issues if you wait until it is too late, not act while the nation is prosperous. Greece has been in default for a very long time and millions are suffering for it. If you wish to have a smooth transition to our automated future, you act ahead of time and transition slowly, not wait until your capitalism crashed and burned then try to implement it as a last resort.

There are somethings socialism doesn't work and basic income hasn't worked out yet. Greece is gonna suffer more if they go into basic income.

I added to above posts. sry on a tablet atm so not easiest to type. There is no evidence basic income doesn't work as of yet. Why do you believe socialism doesn't work? it is working very well for nations such as norway when they made every citizen a millionaire.

our automated future is coming whether we are ready or not.

It is indeed coming, which is why people need to adapt and be retrained in other careers in order to survive.

Don't put words in my mouth, I said certain parts of socialism don't work like a basic income. Things like single payer do work and I'm in favor of that. But not basic income.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here