Did you read the "Origin of Species"?
Yes, all of it.
14.3% (10)
14.3% (10)
No, I plan to someday.
20% (14)
20% (14)
Some of it.
10% (7)
10% (7)
I did read some more recent papers on evolution.
34.3% (24)
34.3% (24)
I don't care.
21.4% (15)
21.4% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENT: Please stop posting about evolution if you didn't read about it.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Frission:

TheIronRuler:
Hey Frission, can we do the same the other way around and tell atheists to stop posting about Religion if they didn't read about it?

Frission:

Refer to the option of "I haven't read the book but I still took basic biology". I'll just change the OP.

.
Y'Know, Evolution isn't just this one piece of information, it spawned a field of study in biology that go a little further than what Darwin originally said.

I think religion is something slightly different because it deals with the metaphysical, but be my guest. I actually find that reading several religious books and mythologies to be quite an eye opener. The "Epic Of Gilgamesh" for example talked about a great flood and a survivor and wife (Upanashim) far before Noe. From an anthropological viewpoint, it's pretty interesting.

Yes, I know evolution isn't just some small piece of information. Yes, it's more than Darwin's original book. Yes, yes and yes. I just thought that it's a good start. There's other links above, or the recommendations of other posters.

[quote="Uszi" post="528.395092.16042156"]
Here, this was my Bio "101" text book:
http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Seventh-Hardcover-Textbook/dp/B0031Z0RNG

This is a good other source.

.
Religion isn't as different as you may think when it comes down to people who criticize it without even knowing what they're talking about. What difference is there between a man denouncing religion, saying "it is the root of all evil in the world" while he does not know what he is talking about and between a man denouncing evolution, saying "it is the root of all evil"? The history of religion and the religious texts themselves form our modern "western" cultural sphere, and neglecting to study that with the pretense that there is no god is no different (in my eyes) from a creationalist neglecting to study evolution because he believes it's the word of satan.

TheIronRuler:

.
Religion isn't as different as you may think when it comes down to people who criticize it without even knowing what they're talking about. What difference is there between a man denouncing religion, saying "it is the root of all evil in the world" while he does not know what he is talking about and between a man denouncing evolution, saying "it is the root of all evil"? The history of religion and the religious texts themselves form our modern "western" cultural sphere, and neglecting to study that with the pretense that there is no god is no different (in my eyes) from a creationalist neglecting to study evolution because he believes it's the word of satan.

I think the difference is that very few people are going to go entirely out, by saying that "This is the root of all evil". Heck they might not even know or believe in Satan.
Most ignorance stems from lack of resources or complete apathy about one's ignorance. The difference for me then is the value of what people choose to ignore. I find that evolution is a pretty big thing to neglect since it's a documented scientific phenomena, versus religion, which pardon me, has come in a several different forms and which lesson is mainly moral and how to live your life.
Now the dislike for it. In the end hatred for me all boils down to the same thing. It doesn't meant that the source or validity isn't different. Alot of hatred stems from ignorance, but not always.

Before the thread "why do people reject religion", became a 22 page abomination, there was the question of why some people were against it. I took it away as people reject it because they don't understand or some part of them just want to reject it no matter what, perhaps out of pride. Or maybe they attribute to it the world's ills. Like a scapegoat, they see the problems around them, but since they don't understand they lash out at a specific target. Hatred of a religion I think can perhaps happen because people demonize the group. I can't tell you how many times I've heard terrible things said of all Muslims everywhere. Then it gets mixed with racial hatred. It's scapegoating in the end really.

I think you're referring to the Judeo-Chirstian Religions, right? I think most of the hatred stems from slights real or otherwise. There might also be confusion on whether it's really hatred.

There are after all too many cries of "I'm being oppressed". In the recent election Rick Perry tried to make a big deal about being persecuted and not being able to pray in office. Normally the post of president is la´que, so some people might have been disgusted by this.

I know I'm against religion, mainly because I don't give a damn about it and I sometimes resent the influence it may have. As I said earlier, some people might just not care, or think that it doesn't make sense. Thus someone who's against it, may just want religion to have less of an effect on society. Of course those who actively crusade against religion may think that's it's the source of all of the world's ills as you said. I don't understand the mindset.

Thinking about it, while this is interesting, why did you bring this up?
Did someone get on your case or piss you off when he/she talked about religion?

Frission:

TheIronRuler:

.
Religion isn't as different as you may think when it comes down to people who criticize it without even knowing what they're talking about. What difference is there between a man denouncing religion, saying "it is the root of all evil in the world" while he does not know what he is talking about and between a man denouncing evolution, saying "it is the root of all evil"? The history of religion and the religious texts themselves form our modern "western" cultural sphere, and neglecting to study that with the pretense that there is no god is no different (in my eyes) from a creationalist neglecting to study evolution because he believes it's the word of satan.

I think the difference is that very few people are going to go entirely out, by saying that "This is the root of all evil". Heck they might not even know or believe in Satan.
Most ignorance stems from lack of resources or complete apathy about one's ignorance. The difference for me then is the value of what people choose to ignore. I find that evolution is a pretty big thing to neglect since it's a documented scientific phenomena, versus religion, which pardon me, has come in a several different forms and which lesson is mainly moral and how to live your life.
Now the dislike for it. In the end hatred for me all boils down to the same thing. It doesn't meant that the source or validity isn't different. Alot of hatred stems from ignorance, but not always.

Before the thread "why do people reject religion", became a 22 page abomination, there was the question of why some people were against it. I took it away as people reject it because they don't understand or some part of them just want to reject it no matter what, perhaps out of pride. Or maybe they attribute to it the world's ills. Like a scapegoat, they see the problems around them, but since they don't understand they lash out at a specific target. Hatred of a religion I think can perhaps happen because people demonize the group. I can't tell you how many times I've heard terrible things said of all Muslims everywhere. Then it gets mixed with racial hatred. It's scapegoating

I think you're referring to the Judeo-Chirstian Religion, right? I think most of the hatred stems from slights real or otherwise. There might also be confusion on whether it's really hatred.

There are after all too many cries of "I'm being oppressed". In the recent election Rick Perry tried to make a big deal about being persecuted and not being able to pray in office. Normally the post of president is la´que, so some people might have been disgusted by this. I know I'm against religion, mainly because I don't give a damn about it and I sometimes resent the influence it may have. As I said earlier, some people might just not care, or think that it doesn't make sense. Thus someone who's against it, may just want religion to have less of an effect on society. Of course those who actively crusade against may think as you said that's it's the source of all of ills as you said. I don't understand the mindset.

Thinking about it, while this is interesting, why did you bring this up?
Did someone get on your case or piss you off when he/she talked about religion?

.
There are a lot of people on this forum that piss me off in that sort of way. They often don't bother to understand what they're criticizing and it doesn't look any different from debating against a creationalist.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.394995-How-religion-is-becoming-like-the-dodo
This for example boiled my blood.

Ok do you want to know the main reason why religion (particularly Christianity as I know the most about it), its because its a arrogant childish way of looking at the universe. It dumb's down all the complexity we see in the natural world to saying that one all mighty being created it all and is responsible for all the fantastic phenomena around us, and to make it so were the most important piece in this universe we were created in the image of this all powerful creator. That is arrogant beyond comparison, even beyond when we believed the Earth was the centre of the universe.

Also with the whole souls, afterlife, ghosts thing; I find it quite surprising that humans and some domestic animals seem to be the only creatures with souls/ghosts on this planet. You never hear stories of sightings of dinosaur, cow or fish ghosts/souls do you? Again arrogance presuming were the only organism worthy of an afterlife, considering that there are many animals self aware and intelligent its hard to support the idea that human beings are the only ones that are "worthy" to have an afterlife if one exists (which I believe there isn't).

Next the whole community, ethics and morals reasoning for religion; I am an atheist, I have had no religious upbringing yet I do not go around killing or stealing, also I have community of friends and family who are for the most part either atheist or agnostic. Reason being is that morals, ethics and community are not of religious origin, they are ingrained into our DNA, we evolved into a social species who use to form groups for hunting and protection, if one of those individuals stole or killed other members he would wind up alone and soon dead so we have evolved to know they are wrong to do and to keep friends and family close.

Finally just because science cannot explain everything and a book written 1000s of years ago by for all you know a madman proposes a idea of what happened, does not automatically make it correct. That is a stupid way to argue because I could say that at the center of the universe there is a giant teapot the size of 60,000 suns, now the bible doesn't say that's wrong so it must be true but any rational person would go "wait no that's a stupid theory because teapots are a manmade invention so how could one so large be millions of light years away?" And I never said it would be quick extinction, would take a long time but do not think as long as 1000 years, to give a bit of perspective the new computer age which has taken over the world completely has happened in just over/under half a century.

Can I just say that it reminded me of a Creationalist's argument against science, when they said that man is too small and insignificant to understand what God had made and intended, and that man cannot disprove god? Always Arrogantt.

Some other threads have small snippets of annoying posts I could ignore to a point.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.395305-Questions-for-former-Religious-Followers-Or-Atheists-in-general
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.395217-Reasons-for-Opposition-to-Gay-Marriage

The unspoken assumption here is: Reading is understanding.

Besides, would I really need to read "capital" in order to criticize socialism?

Or can I just quote Mises?

vonmanstein:
The unspoken assumption here is: Reading is understanding.

Besides, would I really need to read "capital" in order to criticize socialism?

Or can I just quote Mises?

Effectively, reading isn't enough. It's a good start though. When someone is given the tools, it's their choice what to do with them.

On socialism for example. There seems to be a lot of confusion on that matter. Socialism does not equal communism. We actually already live in a society with socialist elements, since a pure capitalist society would be too dangerous and too heartless.

"Mises argued that money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles. His other notable contribution was his argument that socialism must fail economically because of the economic calculation problem - the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy." Last sentence already shows a misunderstanding of what socialism actually is. Or the particular brand of democratic-capitalist socialism that I support.

Hmm, I have to read something beyond Wikipedia. Give me a few hours to read up on him. Or days. So far, though I do have to criticize him in some areas.

"Marginal utility is based on a tautology (prices are determined by marginal utility but the degree of utility can only be measured with reference to price). Engels deals with Jevons's marginal utility in the Preface to Cv3, stating that it is possible to construct a simple socialism out of marginal theory. The reasoning goes, that one dollar is worth more to a poor man than a rich man, hence the degree of social utility can be increased by redistributing wealth by means of the tax system.

I think Mises tries to undermine this by saying that utility is ordinal, not cardinal, based on the subjective preferences of the individual that cannot be measured numerically (with reference to price), but this still means that he is unable to say that redistributive polices which might increase the degree of social utility are in themselves bad and it wholly undermines the Austrianist position against taxation."

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/12/the_hangover_theory.html
I also have some of my favorite sources that are far more eloquent then I will ever be.

"Capital" by John Lancaster right? I have to read that. Is it free online or can you sum it up? That would save time.

Maybe my tone was far too forceful, in the opening. I don't think it's that necessary, but it would certainly help.

What are you arguments against socialism or aspects of it? I would suggest making a thread... but knowing what would happen, I would rather keep it small.

Frission:

vonmanstein:
The unspoken assumption here is: Reading is understanding.

Besides, would I really need to read "capital" in order to criticize socialism?

Or can I just quote Mises?

Effectively, reading isn't enough. It's a good start though. When someone is given the tools, it's their choice what to do with them.

On socialism for example. There seems to be a lot of confusion on that matter. Socialism does not equal communism. We actually already live in a society with socialist elements, since a pure capitalist society would be too dangerous and too heartless.

"Mises argued that money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles. His other notable contribution was his argument that socialism must fail economically because of the economic calculation problem - the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy." Last sentence already shows a misunderstanding of what socialism actually is. Or the particular brand of democratic-capitalist socialism that I support.

Hmm, I have to read something beyond Wikipedia. Give me a few hours to read up on him. Or days. So far, though I do have to criticize him in some areas.

"Marginal utility is based on a tautology (prices are determined by marginal utility but the degree of utility can only be measured with reference to price). Engels deals with Jevons's marginal utility in the Preface to Cv3, stating that it is possible to construct a simple socialism out of marginal theory. The reasoning goes, that one dollar is worth more to a poor man than a rich man, hence the degree of social utility can be increased by redistributing wealth by means of the tax system.

I think Mises tries to undermine this by saying that utility is ordinal, not cardinal, based on the subjective preferences of the individual that cannot be measured numerically (with reference to price), but this still means that he is unable to say that redistributive polices which might increase the degree of social utility are in themselves bad and it wholly undermines the Austrianist position against taxation."

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/12/the_hangover_theory.html
I also have some of my favorite sources that are far more eloquent then I will ever be.

"Capital" by John Lancaster right? I have to read that. Is it free online or can you sum it up? That would save time.

Maybe my tone was far too forceful, in the opening. I don't think it's that necessary, but it would certainly help.

What are you arguments against socialism or aspects of it? I would suggest making a thread... but knowing what would happen, I would rather keep it small.

You don't understand.
Das Kapital.....Marx
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Capital)
My point is that so few people actually read the literature behind various theories because there is no need.
you falsely assume that understanding {x} is a product of reading certain literature pertaining to {x}, when in reality one can attain a reasonable understanding otherwise. For example; I could read Mises and criticize socialism (Mises was criticizing Stalinist economics, which he called socialism[I use Mises's definition]) because Mises understood Stalinism, and that understanding was reflected in his writings.

vonmanstein:

You don't understand.
Das Kapital.....Marx
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Capital)
My point is that so few people actually read the literature behind various theories because there is no need.
you falsely assume that understanding {x} is a product of reading certain literature pertaining to {x}, when in reality one can attain a reasonable understanding otherwise. For example; I could read Mises and criticize socialism (Mises was criticizing Stalinist economics, which he called socialism[I use Mises's definition]) because Mises understood Stalinism, and that understanding was reflected in his writings.

Oh sorry. Marx seemed so obvious so I thought you were talking about something more obscure. That and I don't ever make the connection when the title is not exactly the one I know, which I acknowledge is very stupid.

Well you're right. Effectively using his books to criticize socialism now is a bit stupid.

I stand by my point, that while you don't actually have to read the source material, you're* still required to know* the basic concept to understand it. That's what I've wanted to say in the end. Trying to argue about socialism using for base the rants of McCarthy and a couple of the more deranged members of the extreme right for example is certainly not going to provide understanding.

EDIT: Idiotic Mistakes *

Frission:

vonmanstein:

You don't understand.
Das Kapital.....Marx
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Capital)
My point is that so few people actually read the literature behind various theories because there is no need.
you falsely assume that understanding {x} is a product of reading certain literature pertaining to {x}, when in reality one can attain a reasonable understanding otherwise. For example; I could read Mises and criticize socialism (Mises was criticizing Stalinist economics, which he called socialism[I use Mises's definition]) because Mises understood Stalinism, and that understanding was reflected in his writings.

Oh sorry. Marx seemed so obvious so I thought you were talking about something more obscure. That and I don't ever make the connection when the title is not exactly the one I know, which I acknowledge is very stupid.

Well you're right. Effectively using his books to criticize socialism now is a bit stupid.

I stand by my point, that while you don't actually have to read the source material, you still required to understand the basic concept to understand it. That's what I've wanted to say in the end. Trying to argue about socialism using for base the rants of McCarthy and a couple of the more deranged members of the extreme right for example is certainly not going to provide understanding.

I think we've found some common ground, we both believe that some kind of understanding is necessary.

I do look forward to the "Democratic Capitalist Socialism" vs Laissez faire argument in the future though (i'm a Friedmanite).

vonmanstein:

Frission:

vonmanstein:

You don't understand.
Das Kapital.....Marx
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Capital)
My point is that so few people actually read the literature behind various theories because there is no need.
you falsely assume that understanding {x} is a product of reading certain literature pertaining to {x}, when in reality one can attain a reasonable understanding otherwise. For example; I could read Mises and criticize socialism (Mises was criticizing Stalinist economics, which he called socialism[I use Mises's definition]) because Mises understood Stalinism, and that understanding was reflected in his writings.

Oh sorry. Marx seemed so obvious so I thought you were talking about something more obscure. That and I don't ever make the connection when the title is not exactly the one I know, which I acknowledge is very stupid.

Well you're right. Effectively using his books to criticize socialism now is a bit stupid.

I stand by my point, that while you don't actually have to read the source material, you still required to understand the basic concept to understand it. That's what I've wanted to say in the end. Trying to argue about socialism using for base the rants of McCarthy and a couple of the more deranged members of the extreme right for example is certainly not going to provide understanding.

I think we've found some common ground, we both believe that some kind of understanding is necessary.

I do look forward to the "Democratic Capitalist Socialism" vs Laissez faire argument in the future though (i'm a Friedmanite).

Same here.

Strange thing with "DCS" is that it's pretty much society right now. More or less. More European than American. Representatives are elected and private enterprise exists. Elements like welfare are there for the poorer members of society so there won't a huge gap between the very rich and the very poor.

I support "DCS" because, it allows people to elect their own leaders and be more flexible in changing times. It also allows the liberty to start one's own business and to change one's own social class, yet should someone be poor ( because being poor does not automatically mean that they're idiots or lazy. Someone is always going to do the jobs no one else wants to do) there would be a social security net where they won't fall in paupertude and they won't have to live paycheck to paycheck or refrain from getting treated, because they're afraid of the astronomical bills. It also gives them more spending power. There's flaws, but I think it's the least worst type of government that exists.

I believe that Government should have an active role. Regulations exist to preserve the health of the population and keep the environment clean, so private enterprise can't do what it wants. Things like the Clean water bill and the Clean air bill. There has been the case of Wilbur, Massachusetts where agricultural waste was being dumped into the river because there wasn't a law against it. It ended up in the drinking water. Did you hear about Love Canal NY? The toxic waste eventually made people sick and some even died. Right in the U.S.

Private Enterprise in my opinion can't be trusted to protect the health of the public, since it's main goal is it's bottom line. I don't blame them, since that's not it's function. It's public authorities who are responsible for the health of the populace. Normally anyway. Sometimes they're in bed I realize, and the population is left with dangerous water, which is the case in much of the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html

The government is also required for grand projects like building mass transit, something people can't do alone.
That's my opinion anyway. A society is measure by how it treats it's most vulnerable members.

What do you think? Or do you want more time? Or do you think this conversation should happen in another thread?

Frission:

vonmanstein:

Frission:

Oh sorry. Marx seemed so obvious so I thought you were talking about something more obscure. That and I don't ever make the connection when the title is not exactly the one I know, which I acknowledge is very stupid.

Well you're right. Effectively using his books to criticize socialism now is a bit stupid.

I stand by my point, that while you don't actually have to read the source material, you still required to understand the basic concept to understand it. That's what I've wanted to say in the end. Trying to argue about socialism using for base the rants of McCarthy and a couple of the more deranged members of the extreme right for example is certainly not going to provide understanding.

I think we've found some common ground, we both believe that some kind of understanding is necessary.

I do look forward to the "Democratic Capitalist Socialism" vs Laissez faire argument in the future though (i'm a Friedmanite).

Same here.

Strange thing with "DCS" is that it's pretty much society right now. More or less. More European than American. Representatives are elected and private enterprise exists. Elements like welfare are there for the poorer members of society so there won't a huge gap between the very rich and the very poor.

I support "DCS" because, it allows people to elect their own leaders and be more flexible in changing times. It also allows the liberty to start one's own business and to change one's own social class, yet should someone be poor ( because being poor does not automatically mean that they're idiots or lazy. Someone is always going to do the jobs no one else wants to do) there would be a social security net where they won't fall in paupertude and they won't have to live paycheck to paycheck or refrain from getting treated, because they're afraid of the astronomical bills. It also gives them more spending power. There's flaws, but I think it's the least worst type of government that exists.

I believe that Government should have an active role. Regulations exist to preserve the health of the population and keep the environment clean, so private enterprise can't do what it wants. Things like the Clean water bill and the Clean air bill. There has been the case of Wilbur, Massachusetts where agricultural waste was being dumped into the river because there wasn't a law against it. It ended up in the drinking water. Did you hear about Love Canal NY? The toxic waste eventually made people sick and some even died. Right in the U.S.

Private Enterprise in my opinion can't be trusted to protect the health of the public, since it's main goal is it's bottom line. I don't blame them, since that's not it's function. It's public authorities who are responsible for the health of the populace. Normally anyway. Sometimes they're in bed I realize, and the population is left with dangerous water, which is the case in much of the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html

The government is also required for grand projects like building mass transit, something people can't do alone.
That's my opinion anyway. A society is measure by how it treats it's most vulnerable members.

What do you think? Or do you want more time? Or do you think this conversation should happen in another thread?

Yeah, Love Canal is actually an hours drive from my residence. I agree with this assertion regarding regulation, however I question the scope of regulation required to protect individuals. I would certainly agree that works projects which require substantial start-up capital(nuke plants, infrastructure, & research) are in the government's domain, as the tremendous capital required for entry dissuades private equity. However, the government in the United States regulates excessively and subsidizes aggressively, this is not the government's prerogative and creates unnecessary inefficiency.

vonmanstein:

Frission:

vonmanstein:

I think we've found some common ground, we both believe that some kind of understanding is necessary.

I do look forward to the "Democratic Capitalist Socialism" vs Laissez faire argument in the future though (i'm a Friedmanite).

Same here.

Strange thing with "DCS" is that it's pretty much society right now. More or less. More European than American. Representatives are elected and private enterprise exists. Elements like welfare are there for the poorer members of society so there won't a huge gap between the very rich and the very poor.

I support "DCS" because, it allows people to elect their own leaders and be more flexible in changing times. It also allows the liberty to start one's own business and to change one's own social class, yet should someone be poor ( because being poor does not automatically mean that they're idiots or lazy. Someone is always going to do the jobs no one else wants to do) there would be a social security net where they won't fall in paupertude and they won't have to live paycheck to paycheck or refrain from getting treated, because they're afraid of the astronomical bills. It also gives them more spending power. There's flaws, but I think it's the least worst type of government that exists.

I believe that Government should have an active role. Regulations exist to preserve the health of the population and keep the environment clean, so private enterprise can't do what it wants. Things like the Clean water bill and the Clean air bill. There has been the case of Wilbur, Massachusetts where agricultural waste was being dumped into the river because there wasn't a law against it. It ended up in the drinking water. Did you hear about Love Canal NY? The toxic waste eventually made people sick and some even died. Right in the U.S.

Private Enterprise in my opinion can't be trusted to protect the health of the public, since it's main goal is it's bottom line. I don't blame them, since that's not it's function. It's public authorities who are responsible for the health of the populace. Normally anyway. Sometimes they're in bed I realize, and the population is left with dangerous water, which is the case in much of the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html

The government is also required for grand projects like building mass transit, something people can't do alone.
That's my opinion anyway. A society is measure by how it treats it's most vulnerable members.

What do you think? Or do you want more time? Or do you think this conversation should happen in another thread?

Yeah, Love Canal is actually an hours drive from my residence. I agree with this assertion regarding regulation, however I question the scope of regulation required to protect individuals. I would certainly agree that works projects which require substantial start-up capital(nuke plants, infrastructure, & research) are in the government's domain, as the tremendous capital required for entry dissuades private equity. However, the government in the United States regulates excessively and subsidizes aggressively, this is not the government's prerogative and creates unnecessary inefficiency.

Yes, because reality is quite different than theory. I had to go through some red tape today and it's quite annoying. Britain is an example of a country paralyzed by inefficient and aging infrastructure. I think that this inefficiency is something that is inevitable in any enterprises that involve human beings.

The U.S is quite big as well, so there will be to a smaller regional government and conflicts may occur. I think that the is the government's prerogative and what it should do falls more in the domain of the people to decide and elect.

It's less the system and more the people in it. At least, that's my belief.
Interesting thing about subsidies. Of the three ways to change a society, subsidies are the most inefficient.

There's education, which is the cheapest and has the widest and more long lasting impact, even if it takes a while. An educated society will make the changes themselves.

There's infrastructure. Laws and regulations can be placed. This has a more immediate effect, but runs the risk of all changes in government.

Then there's subsidies. It's the most expensive and the least efficient. You also run the risk of having nothing happen and as a plus there's a chance of a lot of corruption. However, since someone gets to float around money and it makes the newspapers and gets the favor of private groups to politicians, it's the most widely used.

That's an oversimplification, but that's my take on it.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked