Christianity and Environmentalism shouldn't be incompatible

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

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.

That is why we need basic income, the people are too poor to receive the education they need to be able to change careers. In a capitalist system, you get what you pay for in terms of education, so they come from poor families, in poor school districts that do not have the resources to properly prepare them for university and wind up missing out on what would have been their future if that were not the case. How many scientists, engineers, physicians, inventors, teachers have we lost due to not being able to pursue their futures because they were forced to struggle to survive instead?

We create a loop of poverty in the US making it very difficult to recover from. Not due to " socialism and welfare" but due to the struggle to survive in poverty itself. We have a system that prevents people from achieving their potential rather than helps them succeed. That must change, and yes i will take " socialism" in order to change it.

Basic income really should be relabeled as "basic survival". People need their basic needs met before they can focus on achieving their potential is the issue. Food, water, shelter, medical, access to education and information have to be achieved first before they can do anything else at all. Many people in the US are not able to do that due to the system that is currently in place.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:
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.

That is why we need basic income, the people are too poor to receive the education they need to be able to change careers. In a capitalist system, you get what you pay for in terms of education, so they come from poor families, in poor school districts that do not have the resources to properly prepare them for university and wind up missing out on what would have been their future if that were not the case. How many scientists, engineers, physicians, inventors, teachers have we lost due to not being able to pursue their futures because they were forced to struggle to survive instead?

We create a loop of poverty in the US making it very difficult to recover from. Not due to " socialism and welfare" but due to the struggle to survive in poverty itself. We have a system that prevents people from achieving their potential rather than helps them succeed. That must change, and yes i will take " socialism" in order to change it.

Basic income really should be relabeled as "basic survival". People need their basic needs met before they can focus on achieving their potential is the issue. Food, water, shelter, medical, access to education and information have to be achieved first before they can do anything else at all. Many people in the US are not able to do that due to the system that is currently in place.

Then implement free college and a national jobs program that gurantees people a job like Bernie Sanders wants to. Just handing out free money to people like that is wrong.

WolvDragon:
Then implement free college and a national jobs program that gurantees people a job like Bernie Sanders wants to. Just handing out free money to people like that is wrong.

Bernie Sanders has more to say on it that that though here is part of it:

Bernie Sanders: I think that as a nation we should be deeply troubled by the fact that we have more people living in poverty today than ever before and that millions of seniors are finding it difficult to survive on about $1,200 a month from Social Security. I think we need to take a very hard look at why real income has gone down for millions of Americans despite a huge increase in productivity. In my view, every American is entitled to at least a minimum standard of living. There are different ways to get to that goal, but that?s the goal that we should strive to reach.

Bernie Sanders: So long as you have Republicans in control of the House and the Senate, and so long as you have a Congress dominated by big money, I can guarantee you that the discussion about universal basic income is going to go nowhere in a hurry. But, if we can develop a strong grassroots movement which says that every man, woman and child in this country is entitled to a minimum standard of living ? is entitled to health care, is entitled to education, is entitled to housing ? then we can succeed. We are living in the richest country in the history of the world, yet we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country and millions of people are struggling to put food on the table. It is my absolute conviction that everyone in this country deserves a minimum standard of living and we?ve got to go forward in the fight to make that happen.

https://medium.com/basic-income/on-the-record-bernie-sanders-on-basic-income-de9162fb3b5c

Bernie sanders is fighting for baby steps towards this, but will take every inch he can get.

Elon Musk:

Elon Musk doubles down on universal basic income: 'It's going to be necessary'
In an interview with CNBC in November, Tesla CEO Elon Musk joined a growing list of tech executives who support universal basic income as a possible solution to the widespread unemployment that automation will likely cause.

The economic forecasts for the next several decades don't bode well for the American worker. In March, President Barack Obama warned Congress about the looming threat of job loss, based on several reports that found that as much as 50% of jobs could be replaced by robots by 2030

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2

The alternative of course is the wealthy have all resources and they build fortresses around themselves protected by the military while everyone else suffers and dies. Not a very good future there.

So what happens when we do not need any more jobs to be done and have more people piling up that need one? What if the only jobs we have available require skills that the unemployed are not capable of achieving ( aka engineers inventors, physicians).

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

This is a loaded question in a number of ways, but I'll try to stay focused on just a couple of them.

1. There is an assumption - largely based on "common sense" rather than statistics - that environmental regulation and environmentalism in general is bad for the economy. For example, there is a belief that Obama's environmental regulations on the operation of coal mines were responsible for the precipitous decline of the industry and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, the answer is never so simple; the number one cause of job losses in declining industries such as coal is not government regulation, but basic economics. Coal is not as profitable as it used to be. As an energy source, natural gas is cheaper, more efficient, more reliable, slightly cleaner, and there's been a massive glut of it for years now - ironically, ever since shale oil fracking really got off the ground in 2011.

When you look at the regulations closely, this starts to make sense. How would a rule that prohibits the dumping of toxic waste in local waterways account for tens of thousands of lost jobs? The answer is that it doesn't. It could account for a couple hundred in the worst-case scenario. But because it's "common sense" that regulations kill jobs, any job losses in a declining industry get blamed on over-regulation rather than on market forces. That causes a sort of political myopia, where the bulk of the energy and debate gets focused on what is ultimately a very minor factor in overall job numbers.

This isn't a practical way of approaching the problem. If you have an industry that employs a lot of people but is actively harming the environment in ways that are awful in the long term - and in coal's case, is also being forced out by market forces - then the best thing to do is regulate that industry so that it's as safe as possible and compensate for what jobs are lost by creating employment opportunities in other, more sustainable industries. Like renewables, which are a growth industry that is only going to become more and more important as time goes on.

2. The long-term economic impact of climate change and pollution is a consistently underestimated and overlooked factor in the environmental regulation debate, but it's one that is critically important to any kind of risk/gain balancing. It's one thing for the owner of a coal mine to argue that he desperately needs the extra money he'd save from dumping his waste in the river instead of disposing of it safely. But how much is it going to cost to clean up the river? What about the healthcare costs of people who get sick from contaminated water? Or the economic impact of those people not being able to work due to pollution-related illness?

This isn't idle speculation. In Australia, rising water temperatures caused by global warming has triggered an apocalyptic outbreak of coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef, to the extent that about half of the reef has died since just 2016. Believe it or not, the Great Barrier Reef is an important part of Queensland's tourism economy - it's one of the great natural wonders of the world. Reef tourism employs 64,000 people and brings in over six billion dollars annually. And now it's highly likely that the reef will be gone entirely within the next ten to fifteen years. That's six billion dollars annually and sixty-four thousand jobs that will disappear as a direct result of man-made climate change.

But you probably don't live in Australia. Consider this: rising water temperatures are also a factor in the generation of the Atlantic hurricanes that lash America's eastern coastline every year. It is not an exaggeration to state that unnaturally high water temperatures contributed to the three hurricanes that devastated Texas and Puerto Rico last year. Collectively, the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season caused $281 billion in damage, not to mention killing thousands of people. Imagine that happening every four or five years, because that's the future we're headed for in a matter of decades. What do you think that's going to do to the US economy?

Climate change over the coming generation will cause a whole laundry list of problems for future governments. Environmental devastation will create refugee crises, such as that caused by the Haitian earthquake. Preventable diseases will reach epidemic levels due to the spread of mosquitoes and the interruption of proper medical care caused by a natural disaster. Arable land will shrink and marine life will deplete, dramatically affecting the farming and fishing industries. There is a serious risk that developing nations in unfortunate areas will be unable to feed their populations. Summer temperatures will rise, increasing energy consumption (for people with air conditioning) and mortality (for people without).

I could go on, but the role of doomsayer doesn't suit me. The point is that these problems will cost money to fix. Lots of money. If you could prevent those problems from happening - or weaken their impact - by tightening your belt a little now, why wouldn't you do it? The long term almost always matters more than the short term, but the economic impact of environmental regulations is almost always focused on the short term.

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.

Tell that to Alaska.

A UBI is more plausible than you'd think. Hillary even considered running on it in 2016, but couldn't make the math work without doing something unpopular, like raising taxes on very wealthy people.

Generally, a UBI system in the US would be created by consolidating existing social security services and welfare systems into a universal fund, and would amount to anywhere between two to ten thousand dollars a year per person, depending on their household circumstances. That's not enough to really live off, so people will still have to work, but it would make life tremendously more stable for a lot of people living under $50,000 a year. It would also help solve the future employment losses that will be caused by increased automation, and help prevent recessions by regularly stimulating the spending habits of lower-middle class citizens.

It would likely come packaged with a gearing system that fades out the benefits as people's income rises, and would necessitate a tax increase on the very wealthiest actors in the US economy, or at the very least substantive action in closing significant loopholes in the US tax code. But it really could work. Don't write it off without taking a closer look at it.

I suppose, if you want to ignore "Give no thought for the morrow" and "Go forth and multiply"

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.

Greece didn't have its own currency. Other countries do, and so are not under anything like the same constraints. The Euro puts a hard limit on a country's ability to run deficits, and so makes capitalism extremely unstable and punishing (austerity during hard economic times is pro-cyclical and exacerbates the problem).

bastardofmelbourne:

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

This is a loaded question in a number of ways, but I'll try to stay focused on just a couple of them.

1. There is an assumption - largely based on "common sense" rather than statistics - that environmental regulation and environmentalism in general is bad for the economy. For example, there is a belief that Obama's environmental regulations on the operation of coal mines were responsible for the precipitous decline of the industry and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, the answer is never so simple; the number one cause of job losses in declining industries such as coal is not government regulation, but basic economics. Coal is not as profitable as it used to be. As an energy source, natural gas is cheaper, more efficient, more reliable, slightly cleaner, and there's been a massive glut of it for years now - ironically, ever since shale oil fracking really got off the ground in 2011.

When you look at the regulations closely, this starts to make sense. How would a rule that prohibits the dumping of toxic waste in local waterways account for tens of thousands of lost jobs? The answer is that it doesn't. It could account for a couple hundred in the worst-case scenario. But because it's "common sense" that regulations kill jobs, any job losses in a declining industry get blamed on over-regulation rather than on market forces. That causes a sort of political myopia, where the bulk of the energy and debate gets focused on what is ultimately a very minor factor in overall job numbers.

This isn't a practical way of approaching the problem. If you have an industry that employs a lot of people but is actively harming the environment in ways that are awful in the long term - and in coal's case, is also being forced out by market forces - then the best thing to do is regulate that industry so that it's as safe as possible and compensate for what jobs are lost by creating employment opportunities in other, more sustainable industries. Like renewables, which are a growth industry that is only going to become more and more important as time goes on.

2. The long-term economic impact of climate change and pollution is a consistently underestimated and overlooked factor in the environmental regulation debate, but it's one that is critically important to any kind of risk/gain balancing. It's one thing for the owner of a coal mine to argue that he desperately needs the extra money he'd save from dumping his waste in the river instead of disposing of it safely. But how much is it going to cost to clean up the river? What about the healthcare costs of people who get sick from contaminated water? Or the economic impact of those people not being able to work due to pollution-related illness?

This isn't idle speculation. In Australia, rising water temperatures caused by global warming has triggered an apocalyptic outbreak of coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef, to the extent that about half of the reef has died since just 2016. Believe it or not, the Great Barrier Reef is an important part of Queensland's tourism economy - it's one of the great natural wonders of the world. Reef tourism employs 64,000 people and brings in over six billion dollars annually. And now it's highly likely that the reef will be gone entirely within the next ten to fifteen years. That's six billion dollars annually and sixty-four thousand jobs that will disappear as a direct result of man-made climate change.

But you probably don't live in Australia. Consider this: rising water temperatures are also a factor in the generation of the Atlantic hurricanes that lash America's eastern coastline every year. It is not an exaggeration to state that unnaturally high water temperatures contributed to the three hurricanes that devastated Texas and Puerto Rico last year. Collectively, the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season caused $281 billion in damage, not to mention killing thousands of people. Imagine that happening every four or five years, because that's the future we're headed for in a matter of decades. What do you think that's going to do to the US economy?

Climate change over the coming generation will cause a whole laundry list of problems for future governments. Environmental devastation will create refugee crises, such as that caused by the Haitian earthquake. Preventable diseases will reach epidemic levels due to the spread of mosquitoes and the interruption of proper medical care caused by a natural disaster. Arable land will shrink and marine life will deplete, dramatically affecting the farming and fishing industries. There is a serious risk that developing nations in unfortunate areas will be unable to feed their populations. Summer temperatures will rise, increasing energy consumption (for people with air conditioning) and mortality (for people without).

I could go on, but the role of doomsayer doesn't suit me. The point is that these problems will cost money to fix. Lots of money. If you could prevent those problems from happening - or weaken their impact - by tightening your belt a little now, why wouldn't you do it? The long term almost always matters more than the short term, but the economic impact of environmental regulations is almost always focused on the short term.

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.

Tell that to Alaska.

A UBI is more plausible than you'd think. Hillary even considered running on it in 2016, but couldn't make the math work without doing something unpopular, like raising taxes on very wealthy people.

Generally, a UBI system in the US would be created by consolidating existing social security services and welfare systems into a universal fund, and would amount to anywhere between two to ten thousand dollars a year per person, depending on their household circumstances. That's not enough to really live off, so people will still have to work, but it would make life tremendously more stable for a lot of people living under $50,000 a year. It would also help solve the future employment losses that will be caused by increased automation, and help prevent recessions by regularly stimulating the spending habits of lower-middle class citizens.

It would likely come packaged with a gearing system that fades out the benefits as people's income rises, and would necessitate a tax increase on the very wealthiest actors in the US economy, or at the very least substantive action in closing significant loopholes in the US tax code. But it really could work. Don't write it off without taking a closer look at it.

UBI doesn't work, you can't give people free money and not expect to go broke. It's fiscally irresponsible.

WolvDragon:

bastardofmelbourne:

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

This is a loaded question in a number of ways, but I'll try to stay focused on just a couple of them.

1. There is an assumption - largely based on "common sense" rather than statistics - that environmental regulation and environmentalism in general is bad for the economy. For example, there is a belief that Obama's environmental regulations on the operation of coal mines were responsible for the precipitous decline of the industry and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, the answer is never so simple; the number one cause of job losses in declining industries such as coal is not government regulation, but basic economics. Coal is not as profitable as it used to be. As an energy source, natural gas is cheaper, more efficient, more reliable, slightly cleaner, and there's been a massive glut of it for years now - ironically, ever since shale oil fracking really got off the ground in 2011.

When you look at the regulations closely, this starts to make sense. How would a rule that prohibits the dumping of toxic waste in local waterways account for tens of thousands of lost jobs? The answer is that it doesn't. It could account for a couple hundred in the worst-case scenario. But because it's "common sense" that regulations kill jobs, any job losses in a declining industry get blamed on over-regulation rather than on market forces. That causes a sort of political myopia, where the bulk of the energy and debate gets focused on what is ultimately a very minor factor in overall job numbers.

This isn't a practical way of approaching the problem. If you have an industry that employs a lot of people but is actively harming the environment in ways that are awful in the long term - and in coal's case, is also being forced out by market forces - then the best thing to do is regulate that industry so that it's as safe as possible and compensate for what jobs are lost by creating employment opportunities in other, more sustainable industries. Like renewables, which are a growth industry that is only going to become more and more important as time goes on.

2. The long-term economic impact of climate change and pollution is a consistently underestimated and overlooked factor in the environmental regulation debate, but it's one that is critically important to any kind of risk/gain balancing. It's one thing for the owner of a coal mine to argue that he desperately needs the extra money he'd save from dumping his waste in the river instead of disposing of it safely. But how much is it going to cost to clean up the river? What about the healthcare costs of people who get sick from contaminated water? Or the economic impact of those people not being able to work due to pollution-related illness?

This isn't idle speculation. In Australia, rising water temperatures caused by global warming has triggered an apocalyptic outbreak of coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef, to the extent that about half of the reef has died since just 2016. Believe it or not, the Great Barrier Reef is an important part of Queensland's tourism economy - it's one of the great natural wonders of the world. Reef tourism employs 64,000 people and brings in over six billion dollars annually. And now it's highly likely that the reef will be gone entirely within the next ten to fifteen years. That's six billion dollars annually and sixty-four thousand jobs that will disappear as a direct result of man-made climate change.

But you probably don't live in Australia. Consider this: rising water temperatures are also a factor in the generation of the Atlantic hurricanes that lash America's eastern coastline every year. It is not an exaggeration to state that unnaturally high water temperatures contributed to the three hurricanes that devastated Texas and Puerto Rico last year. Collectively, the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season caused $281 billion in damage, not to mention killing thousands of people. Imagine that happening every four or five years, because that's the future we're headed for in a matter of decades. What do you think that's going to do to the US economy?

Climate change over the coming generation will cause a whole laundry list of problems for future governments. Environmental devastation will create refugee crises, such as that caused by the Haitian earthquake. Preventable diseases will reach epidemic levels due to the spread of mosquitoes and the interruption of proper medical care caused by a natural disaster. Arable land will shrink and marine life will deplete, dramatically affecting the farming and fishing industries. There is a serious risk that developing nations in unfortunate areas will be unable to feed their populations. Summer temperatures will rise, increasing energy consumption (for people with air conditioning) and mortality (for people without).

I could go on, but the role of doomsayer doesn't suit me. The point is that these problems will cost money to fix. Lots of money. If you could prevent those problems from happening - or weaken their impact - by tightening your belt a little now, why wouldn't you do it? The long term almost always matters more than the short term, but the economic impact of environmental regulations is almost always focused on the short term.

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.

Tell that to Alaska.

A UBI is more plausible than you'd think. Hillary even considered running on it in 2016, but couldn't make the math work without doing something unpopular, like raising taxes on very wealthy people.

Generally, a UBI system in the US would be created by consolidating existing social security services and welfare systems into a universal fund, and would amount to anywhere between two to ten thousand dollars a year per person, depending on their household circumstances. That's not enough to really live off, so people will still have to work, but it would make life tremendously more stable for a lot of people living under $50,000 a year. It would also help solve the future employment losses that will be caused by increased automation, and help prevent recessions by regularly stimulating the spending habits of lower-middle class citizens.

It would likely come packaged with a gearing system that fades out the benefits as people's income rises, and would necessitate a tax increase on the very wealthiest actors in the US economy, or at the very least substantive action in closing significant loopholes in the US tax code. But it really could work. Don't write it off without taking a closer look at it.

UBI doesn't work, you can't give people free money and not expect to go broke. It's fiscally irresponsible.

You keep saying it doesn't work, even when shown multiple cases where it has worked extremely well. Both Norway and Alaska gave everyone there money and it is working very well. Much of the west is moving in that direction already. You only go broke if your spending surpasses your GDP. That has not been an issue because it isn't like people are non productive.

ALSO, why would it be wrong to to make sure they have their basic necessities provided for so they could focus on more important things? When you make sure that people have a good home, safe neighborhoods, food, water, healthcare, education, access to information they then no longer have to worry about focusing their efforts on those things and can then focus on using their skills to their potential and being more productive. How much time is wasted by those just struggling to make ends meet? What impact does that stress have on their health and ability? It has been shown that poverty reduces productivity, not increases it. For example:

The state of poverty influences productivity in at least two different ways. On the one hand, financial constraints dampen physical and cognitive performance through nutritional deficiencies [1, 2], low educational quality [3, 4], and poor health conditions [5, 6], which in turn affect productivity. On the other hand, a recent literature underscoring the psychological aspects of poverty has identified additional channels through which poverty affects individual decisions in a way that can become counterproductive. These mechanisms include risk and time preferences [7] or individuals' motivations and aspirations [8, 9]. According to [7], the economic and social conditions under which poor people live may lower their willingness to take risks and to forgo current income in favor of higher future incomes, even though the intrinsic time and risk preferences of the poor may be identical to those of wealthier people. One plausible explanation may be that the poor are more liquidity constrained. Because of this tighter constraint, if a poor individual has the choice between a current and a delayed payment in an experiment, he or she may opt for the current payment. Similarly, the anticipation of future liquidity constraints may also induce an individual to prefer a safe payment over a risky payment. Regarding aspirations, [8] observe that, due to lower access to credit, less influential contacts or less access to relevant information, poverty makes it harder for the poor to achieve a given outcome, ceteris paribus. This exacerbates the adverse effects of a behavioural bias that both poor and wealthier people may have in setting aspirations. As a consequence, the poor are more likely to choose a low aspiration level and effort relative to the best outcome they could achieve.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170231

WolvDragon:

UBI doesn't work, you can't give people free money and not expect to go broke. It's fiscally irresponsible.

You're not giving them free money since it's all spent on basic necessities needed for survival. Which simply means more profits for local businesses.

It's called trickle-up economics.

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.

Yes, but it's nothing to do with Christianity.

A lot of evangelicals are right-wingers and believe in right wing ideas. They will then just find a scriptural basis to defend right-wing policies. Calling it "people first" is just the usual sort of tedious PR slogan that attempts to make something sound nice without having to bother with complex arguments to test whether it's really fair or true.

WolvDragon:

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

Well, sure.

You tax and regulate companies, they'll become less productive, and they'll likely react by cutting jobs. Then, by driving down pollution, you'll also lose healthcare jobs tending for people with pollution-related illness, and the jobs created by cleaning up pollution.

In much the same way, it also costs jobs when you stop 7-year-olds being made to scamper around dangerous machinery for tuppence a day, or when you prevent chemicals companies dumping toxic waste into the local river. Think how much more efficient our businesses could be if only they could employ children for bobbins and just get rid of them with no remuneration were their limbs torn off in threshing machine accidents.

By which I mean that certain things have costs, and those costs aren't necessarily factored into the price. They are expected to be borne by third parties - the technical term is "negative externality". So for instance, carbon release causing sea rise that floods Florida is hugely expensive for Floridians, especially ones with low-lying property. However, whilst they're paying the cost, they're surely not producing and consuming all the carbon.

From the perspective of free market principles, people and companies should pay the true cost of their dealings, not expect third parties to suck up the pain for nothing. They often don't like to, of course, because it costs them more.

Christianity can be compatible with just about anything. There is an enviromentally friendly christian party in my government coalition. It isn't a very large party but it does exist and gets enough votes to exercise power.

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

If your job depends on poisoning the air, water/or and ground, the sea rising above where many people live and/or the ruining of ground that used to be fit for agriculture, you should lose that job. You are no more entitled to a destructive job than heroin dealers are entitled to theirs.

WolvDragon:
UBI doesn't work, you can't give people free money and not expect to go broke. It's fiscally irresponsible.

Well, let's take the USA with a total output of (let's call it) $18 trillion.

You decide on a UBI of $10,000 a year for every adult; say 250 million adult citizens, that'll cost $2.5 trillion. Then substract a load of welfare and social security spending (pensions, unemployment benefit, income credits etc.) and their associated (often complex) administration costs which it will effectively replace, I'm guessing that might be up to about $1 trillion, so call it $1.5 trillion to find. That's definitely doable. The question is certainly how it is paid for. One has to assume if that if paid for by decreases in public services, it'll fail: it's just giving money with one hand and removing it with another. So it must be by taxation. At the simplest level, pick any tax you like, really.

There may be other indirect advantages, although of uncertain value. More free time (imagine a poor parent who can dedicate more time to childcare and raise their children better and achieve more in future). Less homelessness. Perhaps less poverty-related healthcare spending and crime. Less stress - again, health benefits.

However, it seems likely to me that a reaction would be a modest reduction of salaries for employment, because there is no longer the same drive for salaries to meet living expenses, especially at the lower end. This frees up money elsewhere in the economy that could be scooped out via taxation. If it's saving corporations lots of money, an obvious suggestion is corporation tax. Alternatively, goods produced by corporations become cheaper with lower labour costs and so living standards generally increase; again, general taxation would work (most of which would be paid by higher income individuals).

Perhaps part of the benefit is simply societal. Increasingly, it seems our societies are polarising between super-high earners able to earn ever-increasing zillions, and McJobs at the bottom with huge downward pressure. If our society cannot create enough decently paid and dignified jobs at the bottom of the scale, we need to recognise that fact and not just leave people in that position to stew.

Well, we're talking about UBI instead of the environment now, I guess.

WolvDragon:
Then implement free college and a national jobs program that gurantees people a job like Bernie Sanders wants to. Just handing out free money to people like that is wrong.

A national job guarantee is really just a UBI with some extra steps involved. Not saying it's a bad idea. I'd prefer a UBI, because it's simpler and easier to implement and tweak. But a jobs guarantee is probably more likely, all things considered.

WolvDragon:
UBI doesn't work, you can't give people free money and not expect to go broke. It's fiscally irresponsible.

All welfare is fundamentally giving people free money. Unemployment benefits, social security, food stamps, Medicare - it's the government paying for people's stuff or else just giving them cash outright.

The important thing to recognise is that a UBI would not be a comprehensive income. It wouldn't be enough to live off on its own. It can't be, that's far too expensive. Like I said above, you're looking at two to ten thousand dollars per annum per person, depending on their household circumstances. That's not enough to live off, but it's enough to give someone a little extra grease to get their car fixed or pay bills.

I'm guessing from the fact that you haven't really engaged with any of the points that people have made that you either consider a UBI fundamentally wrong on a moral level - because people should work for their bread - or that you're just dismissing the idea out of hand because it sounds crazy. If it's the former, I guess I can't really hope to convince you. If it's the latter, I urge you to take a closer look at it, because it's not nearly as crazy as it sounds.

The current Pope has been stirring up a storm aboot pollution recently.

It's mostly Proptestants being climate change denialists and the like. After all, the RCC basically put together a Vatican statement that climate change will increase human hardship and conflict on Earth and world leaders should show real leadership and circumvent what horrors might be visited on humanity if we do nothing.

One of the first things the Papacy did with Trump's visit is give him a dossier on the RCC's stance on he dangers of climate change and the costs to humanity if nothing is done.

Protestants are the ones that believe if you export enugh Jews to Israel, Jesus-sempai will notice them and he'll form a big ol' posse of people screamng about the Rapture.

Agema:
However, it seems likely to me that a reaction would be a modest reduction of salaries for employment, because there is no longer the same drive for salaries to meet living expenses, especially at the lower end.

I'd fathom it could go the opposite way: there is no longer the same drive to work for an insulting wage just to meet basic living expenses.

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

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.

...because it's an experiment. You know those end, right? Now they go through the data to see it's effects.

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

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

Industrys always warn that any extra rise in cost ever will lead to job losses, be it environmental regulation, pro-labor regulations, making them actually pay tax for once, etc.

They're frequently incorrect.

bastardofmelbourne:
Well, we're talking about UBI instead of the environment now, I guess.

WolvDragon:
Then implement free college and a national jobs program that gurantees people a job like Bernie Sanders wants to. Just handing out free money to people like that is wrong.

A national job guarantee is really just a UBI with some extra steps involved. Not saying it's a bad idea. I'd prefer a UBI, because it's simpler and easier to implement and tweak. But a jobs guarantee is probably more likely, all things considered.

WolvDragon:
UBI doesn't work, you can't give people free money and not expect to go broke. It's fiscally irresponsible.

All welfare is fundamentally giving people free money. Unemployment benefits, social security, food stamps, Medicare - it's the government paying for people's stuff or else just giving them cash outright.

The important thing to recognise is that a UBI would not be a comprehensive income. It wouldn't be enough to live off on its own. It can't be, that's far too expensive. Like I said above, you're looking at two to ten thousand dollars per annum per person, depending on their household circumstances. That's not enough to live off, but it's enough to give someone a little extra grease to get their car fixed or pay bills.

I'm guessing from the fact that you haven't really engaged with any of the points that people have made that you either consider a UBI fundamentally wrong on a moral level - because people should work for their bread - or that you're just dismissing the idea out of hand because it sounds crazy. If it's the former, I guess I can't really hope to convince you. If it's the latter, I urge you to take a closer look at it, because it's not nearly as crazy as it sounds.

As stated previously, I'm all for progressive policies that'll help people make a decent living and not be in poverty. For example I think the minimum wage should be a living wage and tied to inflation. We need free college for those who seek to improve their skills to get a better paying job without fear of going into debt, I also support Bernie Sander's plan to give everyone in America a job. I also support giving people free job retraining for other career paths.

Even if it's not as crazy as it sounds, I feel like giving people free money, even if their working, is a bad idea.

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:
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

Industrys always warn that any extra rise in cost ever will lead to job losses, be it environmental regulation, pro-labor regulations, making them actually pay tax for once, etc.

They're frequently incorrect.

Except it does happen.

https://m.qt.com.au/news/business-blames-carbon-tax-for-local-job-losses/2004557/

Pseudonym:
Christianity can be compatible with just about anything. There is an enviromentally friendly christian party in my government coalition. It isn't a very large party but it does exist and gets enough votes to exercise power.

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

If your job depends on poisoning the air, water/or and ground, the sea rising above where many people live and/or the ruining of ground that used to be fit for agriculture, you should lose that job. You are no more entitled to a destructive job than heroin dealers are entitled to theirs.

Humans are destroying the enviorment anyway. Over population is destroying many natural habitats throughout the world, should we ban people having kids? We consume fossil fuels on a daily basis and that's not gonna change anytime soon. Even if we all suddenly stop doing that, we already screwed up the planet.

Someone should not lose their livelihood.

WolvDragon:

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

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

Industrys always warn that any extra rise in cost ever will lead to job losses, be it environmental regulation, pro-labor regulations, making them actually pay tax for once, etc.

They're frequently incorrect.

Except it does happen.

https://m.qt.com.au/news/business-blames-carbon-tax-for-local-job-losses/2004557/

Again, that's an industry dude claiming the cause is the carbon tax...a tax said dude doesn't even pay.

But sitting Labor MP for Blair Shayne Neumann said Mr Zanow's business was not paying the carbon tax directly and he was leading an anti-Labor campaign.

Mr Neumann said Zanows' had made no attempt to seek assistance from the Federal Government to offset the flow-on impacts of the controversial tax.

"He doesn't pay the carbon tax. The impacts that they have got would be indirect impacts," he said.

"If he says he has put workers off as a result of the carbon price in his industry, it is from an indirect flow through."

Mr Neumann said Queensland's electricity prices had jumped up 50% in recent years, but only 0.09% is attributable to the carbon tax. The carbon tax has reduced emissions by 7.7% since its introduction.

WolvDragon:

Pseudonym:
Christianity can be compatible with just about anything. There is an enviromentally friendly christian party in my government coalition. It isn't a very large party but it does exist and gets enough votes to exercise power.

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

If your job depends on poisoning the air, water/or and ground, the sea rising above where many people live and/or the ruining of ground that used to be fit for agriculture, you should lose that job. You are no more entitled to a destructive job than heroin dealers are entitled to theirs.

Humans are destroying the enviorment anyway. Over population is destroying many natural habitats throughout the world, should we ban people having kids? We consume fossil fuels on a daily basis and that's not gonna change anytime soon. Even if we all suddenly stop doing that, we already screwed up the planet.

Someone should not lose their livelihood.

And yet, automation is going to make that a reality for huge numbers of people in the pursuit of higher profits. Look, we can make up bullshit make-work to justify a UBI, but why bother making people too tired to make their own thing?

Just cut out the middleman BS

WolvDragon:
As stated previously, I'm all for progressive policies that'll help people make a decent living and not be in poverty. For example I think the minimum wage should be a living wage and tied to inflation. We need free college for those who seek to improve their skills to get a better paying job without fear of going into debt, I also support Bernie Sander's plan to give everyone in America a job. I also support giving people free job retraining for other career paths.

Even if it's not as crazy as it sounds, I feel like giving people free money, even if their working, is a bad idea.

That's good. I mean, I agree with everything in that except the last line, and even then I recognise that the idea of a universal basic income is a radical one that probably doesn't have mainstream credibility yet.

A jobs guarantee, on the other hand, was being floated around as early as the 60s. It's a much more likely prospect, even if it's less efficient in my view.

WolvDragon:
Except it does happen.

https://m.qt.com.au/news/business-blames-carbon-tax-for-local-job-losses/2004557/

It does happen, that's true. It's just not the all-important deciding factor that many small-government advocates believe it to be. The determining factor is nearly always broader market forces. These forces, however, are low-profile, and typically people blame the damage on a more obvious scapegoat because that's just how people tend to think. For example, the article you linked involves a businessman shedding five staff members to cope with an increase in energy prices, which he blames on the carbon tax. But the carbon tax was later phased out, and energy prices in Australia haven't gone down. Clearly it wasn't the costs of the carbon tax driving the price hike.

The actual cause of Australia's current spike in energy prices is a heck of a lot more complicated, and I can't answer it satisfactorily - some people believe it's price gouging on the part of the energy companies, some people blame over-exporting of natural gas causing domestic gas prices to rise, some people think it's the closure of a clutch of aging coal-fired power stations, some people blame renewables or environmental regulations (wrongly in my view; the ACT, which has a 100% renewable energy target that it is well on its way to achieving, also has the cheapest power prices in the nation) and some people just chalk it up to Australia's aging and poorly-optimised power grid failing to cope with increasing power demands (]the majority of an Australian's electricity bill comes from just getting the electricity to your house.)

The biggest factor, I think, is simply the lack of any clear signals from the federal government one way or the other. We've been arguing about a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme or some thing or another for ten goddamn years now, and there's still no long-term system in place. That's largely the fault of politicians who are overly beholden to the coal industry, whose lobby has managed to paralyse any federal action by simultaneously opposing investment in renewables and oil and gas drilling - because either one would put them out of business for good. Instead, they want the federal government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars subsidising coal plants that are well past their use-by date and which aren't even profitable for the energy companies anymore, just so they still have a market for the shit they dig up. It's absurd.

Just for the record, when examining the Finnish UBI experiment one must look at the normal course of welfare people get here. The point of the UBI is that it's treated as income instead of a welfare check, because the latter gets cut heavily once the person starts to actually earn money.

Personally I think it could work, but if a person fucks up or has fucked up their personal credit rating, their UBI should be revoked. The fact is that there are people who would waste the sum and soon be asking for the same basic welfare they're getting now. With all that said, our current welfare system is about to be reworked to be more flexible (or so I've heard).

WolvDragon:

Except it does happen.

https://m.qt.com.au/news/business-blames-carbon-tax-for-local-job-losses/2004557/

Just because someone was laid off, doesn't mean lots of people were laid. I could totally see coal plants and mines losing jobs under an ETS. That's the point. But you'd have transfer of jobs to renewables, which still require staffing. Having zero effect is not really possible but it didn't have a big effect either.

I remember in the lead up to the ETS, many businesses with high energy usage had to figure out electricity saving measures, including local ones to this one like Wagners. A lot of the time, it was because they had equipment that was 20 or more years old. They spent some money, became more efficient, and quickly saved a bunch of money (I seem to remember that you got a cash reward from the government for becoming more effecient.) Zanows' sounds like he didn't want to move to changing incentives. That's his proagative, and he gets the rewards he deserves.

I will say that this being a "anti-Labour" remark is utter nonsense.

McElroy:
Just for the record, when examining the Finnish UBI experiment one must look at the normal course of welfare people get here. The point of the UBI is that it's treated as income instead of a welfare check, because the latter gets cut heavily once the person starts to actually earn money.

Personally I think it could work, but if a person fucks up or has fucked up their personal credit rating, their UBI should be revoked. The fact is that there are people who would waste the sum and soon be asking for the same basic welfare they're getting now. With all that said, our current welfare system is about to be reworked to be more flexible (or so I've heard).

Due to the way the credit rating is currently and previously been impacted, nothing should be restricted based on Credit. NOTHING at this point because there are too many factors beyond ones own control impacting credit ratings that it is not an accurate representation of ones own ability to handle finances.
Working in Medicine, I see people every day who have lost everything they have due to illness or injury, even it is not themselves that is ill/ injured. People think that simply because medical bills do not impact credit the same way other things do that is already covered, but it is far from it. When a loved one, a child, a parent a brother or even a close friend has a serious illness or injury, it can affect not only their credit, but the credit of everyone around them due to taking time off from work, trying to help out with someone else's bills so they do not lose their home, car or help pay for their children's expenses while they are in the hospital, Medication and medical devices expenses are not exempt from harming your credit when you are forced to purchase them on credit card. Often these things are not short term, they are long term and sometimes can go on for life never letting up but not knowing that in advance because whether you recover or not, live or die can be on a "one day at a time" basis. These can surmount extreme credit expenses and it does not necessarily even have to be for your household, it can be to help any loved one friend or family. It is not really a "choice" when you have loved ones in a life or death situation.

Predatory student loans have also destroyed the credit of millions of people, and numerous businesses continue to harm peoples scores fraudulently and they cannot afford to fight them. Then you get into identity theft and you open a whole other can of worms. You would have to create a system completely separate from the current credit system that allows for cases to be judged on an individual basis, not just a matter of continuing a very bad system that does more harm than good or you would be leaving the people who need the most help out of the system entirely.

A bad credit score does not mean they are an irresponsible person, they just may have far more responsibilities than most can imagine.

Lil devils x:

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.

Lil devils x:

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

Christian here, You rather excellently nailed the points.

To be a "Christian" literally means to be a "follower of Christ". Jesus whole lifestyle revolved around giving up wealth, and serving the poor, the sick, the needy. Everyone "Christian" who says "I've got my wealth, screw you." is not following Christ. Trump and his ilk may say that they are Christians, but they are not. As in the verse you quoted, it is literally impossible for rich people to enter heaven.

Edit: To add more:

Matthew 25

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I've watched a few self proclaimed nationalist videos on youtube, more out of a sick curiosity. And I recall seeing a few that claimed true nationalists would be environmentalists, because they need to care for their country. It does make sense. I know that Christianity is not nationalism but theres certainly overlap.

skywolfblue:

Lil devils x:

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.

Lil devils x:

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

Christian here, You rather excellently nailed the points.

To be a "Christian" literally means to be a "follower of Christ". Jesus whole lifestyle revolved around giving up wealth, and serving the poor, the sick, the needy. Everyone "Christian" who says "I've got my wealth, screw you." is not following Christ. Trump and his ilk may say that they are Christians, but they are not. As in the verse you quoted, it is literally impossible for rich people to enter heaven.

Edit: To add more:

Matthew 25

34?Then the King will say to those on his right, ?Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.?

37?Then the righteous will answer him, ?Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you??

40?The King will reply, ?Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.?

41?Then he will say to those on his left, ?Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.?

44?They also will answer, ?Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you??

45?He will reply, ?Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.?

46?Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.?

When I was a child, I was basically tortured by fake Christians who tied me to a chair and made me read the bible aloud to "get the devil out of me" and told that my tribe, my ancestors and their culture was evil. They beat, raped and severely abused all of the children there. Not only did I read the entire King James Bible, I had to translate a bible from Hebrew to English, so became aware of the numerous differences between the king James version and the Hebrew version.

I respect actual Christians because the teachings of Christ are a very good thing, and the world would be better for it if people followed his example, sadly though these days they are very difficult to find through the sea of people who go against just about every single thing Christ taught them. Actual Christians are often shunned and attacked by the evangelical community, and it is disturbing how cult like some of these organizations really are now.

Lil devils x:

When I was a child, I was basically tortured by fake Christians who tied me to a chair and made me read the bible aloud to "get the devil out of me" and told that my tribe, my ancestors and their culture was evil. They beat, raped and severely abused all of the children there. Not only did I read the entire King James Bible, I had to translate a bible from Hebrew to English, so became aware of the numerous differences between the king James version and the Hebrew version.

I respect actual Christians because the teachings of Christ are a very good thing, and the world would be better for it if people followed his example, sadly though these days they are very difficult to find through the sea of people who go against just about every single thing Christ taught them. Actual Christians are often shunned and attacked by the evangelical community, and it is disturbing how cult like some of these organizations really are now.

This assumes, of course, that one has not accepted their inevitable and largely eternal membership within the Ecclesia Poenitens. As assassins, thugs, gun runners, drug dealers, and all the sinners of Earth accept that the Church of Suffering is still one in union with Christ. Nearly everyone faces purification, some embrace eternal suffering without losing their union witb Christ.

One half my family lives in the Philippines. They have 10 year olds dragging replica crosses and going on grueling pilgrimages, somestimes on their hands and knees, visiting spiritual sites during the Stations of the Cross. Some of the people who are amongst the most fervent, are crime lords.

Hell, my grandmother prayed to St. Julian and St. Michael during the Japanese occupation as she poisoned and slayed two Japanese officers, and shot another, during her guerrilla days. Prayed for vengeance, prayed to get to grips with the enemy, took trophies like cutting off parts of their uniforms as if memento mori of faith and swearing herself to penitence only if her vengeance and her war would end, and she had already internalized the idea of her purification by the flames of Purgatory.

Catholics already accept 99.99999% of people will burn, and voluntarily choose to do so for short or long, their membership of the Ecclesia Poenitens.

Still Christians.

Hell, Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus) is the patron saint of penitent prostitutes. For people driven to prostitution, and penitent that if their fortunes find them shall seek to be beyond it. You don't get to renounce your communion within the RCC because you're a #BadPerson. That shit is binding, and whether in wanting or sublime grace, acceptance of the Church of Suffering.

This is why Catholic guilt is a thing.

Being a Catholic is best understood through suffering on Earth. Whole reason a whole lot of Catholics went to Japan during the purges.

It's not enough to be tepid in faith in terms of the Catechist of the RCC... but rather to be tempted (failing or grace) through martyrdom is the highest means to find your communion with the divine (for good or ill).

Leading a comfortable life where decency is easy, is in turn, is insincere.

Lil devils x:

McElroy:
Just for the record, when examining the Finnish UBI experiment one must look at the normal course of welfare people get here. The point of the UBI is that it's treated as income instead of a welfare check, because the latter gets cut heavily once the person starts to actually earn money.

Personally I think it could work, but if a person fucks up or has fucked up their personal credit rating, their UBI should be revoked. The fact is that there are people who would waste the sum and soon be asking for the same basic welfare they're getting now. With all that said, our current welfare system is about to be reworked to be more flexible (or so I've heard).

Credit snip

I appreciate the info, however I was writing from my pov here in Finland. There are few things I hate more than debt collecting companies and for precisely that reason I wouldn't want taxpayer money transferred to them via the indebted. Though of course this can be worked around, even now you can't get basic welfare for debts (though sometimes you can... welfare services are way lenient in this country). We'd still have to add some rules to UBI, because the whole point is that it's not supposed to work like basic welfare (= a certain sum of money needed to live once a person has no income or savings).

One of the more common reasons for getting one's debt spiraling out of control is shame. People are ashamed they can't pay one bill, and so they take a quick, high interest loan with no questions asked - possibly dooming themselves. At least here the normal procedure is to work out a plan with the company you owe money so they don't go to the collecting agency. There will be interest but it won't be catastrophic. I think it falls under personal responsibility to do this.

McElroy:

Lil devils x:

McElroy:
Just for the record, when examining the Finnish UBI experiment one must look at the normal course of welfare people get here. The point of the UBI is that it's treated as income instead of a welfare check, because the latter gets cut heavily once the person starts to actually earn money.

Personally I think it could work, but if a person fucks up or has fucked up their personal credit rating, their UBI should be revoked. The fact is that there are people who would waste the sum and soon be asking for the same basic welfare they're getting now. With all that said, our current welfare system is about to be reworked to be more flexible (or so I've heard).

Credit snip

I appreciate the info, however I was writing from my pov here in Finland. There are few things I hate more than debt collecting companies and for precisely that reason I wouldn't want taxpayer money transferred to them via the indebted. Though of course this can be worked around, even now you can't get basic welfare for debts (though sometimes you can... welfare services are way lenient in this country). We'd still have to add some rules to UBI, because the whole point is that it's not supposed to work like basic welfare (= a certain sum of money needed to live once a person has no income or savings).

One of the more common reasons for getting one's debt spiraling out of control is shame. People are ashamed they can't pay one bill, and so they take a quick, high interest loan with no questions asked - possibly dooming themselves. At least here the normal procedure is to work out a plan with the company you owe money so they don't go to the collecting agency. There will be interest but it won't be catastrophic. I think it falls under personal responsibility to do this.

Luckily Finland does a better job of caring for their own people than the US does so they do not deny people access to basic medical necessities as is done here. I have always been impressed with how Finland goes about reducing their infant mortality rate. It sounds like predatory lending may need some regulation as well to prevent people from falling into a trap they can never pay. It would be nice if everyone was " street smart" enough to stay away from things like that, but in reality they are not. It is not unlike some people being naturally inclined to be engineers, while others, no matter what education they receive still are not capable of thinking the way they would be required to to become an engineer.

As we expand our understanding in how our brains actually work, we are coming to realize there are far more neurological reasons for this than just brushing it off to "you should have been smarter" or "you should have been more responsible". Many are just not capable of thinking the same way others do due to their own limitations of capability. For the same reasons we have so many elderly fall for scams or are no longer able to handle their affairs due to declining cognitive function and judgement due to aging, part of the population simply lacks that judgement and higher cognitive function to begin with, or their brain activity in those regions is not as active as it is in other people.

I would hate to "punish" them or make them suffer due to something they really do not control, so it would be good if they do have issues with managing their finances, that they have other options than to either take away their funding all together or just give them money to spend how they will. Maybe in time there could be other options to help them better manage their finances, like a "trust" where they are given an " allowance" to spend on certain things and used to pay their bills rather than punish them for lacking capabilities.

Seanchaidh:
I'd fathom it could go the opposite way: there is no longer the same drive to work for an insulting wage just to meet basic living expenses.

Yes, quite possibly.

A concern is that people will exit the workforce (or work less) once they no longer need to. With a drop in the labour supply, there may be an increase in salaries.

In terms of GDP growth, fewer hours worked at high cost might not be a good thing. The capitalist class will hate it. In terms of societal contentment, however, I suspect many people would be a great deal less unhappy than they are with the current status quo of feeling like rats on a never-ceasing treadmill. Ironically, it may even increase job satisfaction with the knowledge that the McJob you might do is more a choice than a necessity.

Souplex:
The current Pope has been stirring up a storm aboot pollution recently.

Well, Saint Francis of Assisi was a XIIc. monk turned into patron saint of enviromentalism, among other things. So the current head of Church, that took his name, being keen on that issue, doesn't surprise me. You know, aside Francis being generally progressive for a pope overall.

Still, doesn't stop some hardline, patriotic turbocatholics here from taking any form of enviromentalism as a neo-pagan, leftist conspiracy.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
I'd fathom it could go the opposite way: there is no longer the same drive to work for an insulting wage just to meet basic living expenses.

Yes, quite possibly.

A concern is that people will exit the workforce (or work less) once they no longer need to. With a drop in the labour supply, there may be an increase in salaries.

In terms of GDP growth, fewer hours worked at high cost might not be a good thing. The capitalist class will hate it. In terms of societal contentment, however, I suspect many people would be a great deal less unhappy than they are with the current status quo of feeling like rats on a never-ceasing treadmill. Ironically, it may even increase job satisfaction with the knowledge that the McJob you might do is more a choice than a necessity.

I've seen an awful lot of evidence that most people don't actually want to get off the treadmill, even if they could (and in many countries, they can). I've even heard it argued several times that people are happier even with a shit job just because it distracts them from thinking about how shitty their lives are.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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