TheGM
The voice of reason
Taxing people for owning a car? Designated living spaces for the agricultural sector? Bicycles? What is the commie speak I'm hearing.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Not to mention the underhanded mention that the state functionaries and bureaucrats should get more luxuries.
But yeah, of course this is nothing that would seriously happen. Elements of it are sometimes kinda mentioned by certain german parties, but the collectivist future is still quite far away.
Eh who knows? Hass I think we have to wait and see. It doesn't have to be 'collectivist'. I mean you alrady have tons of regulations in place already now and most of the limitations would probably apply to the industry and honestly not all of them would actually hit people THAT hard. Would it be such a huge issue if you had a limit on how many flights you can have in 1 year? This won't kill people. A lot could also be done trough taxes, like a Carbon tax, some nations have those already. I think at least some stuff will change in the near future, it just needs one or two serious near catastrophic events to wake people up, some serious blackout a few more really hot summers maybe and the preasure on the politicans to actually do something might increase. But, that's of course just what I think, it could very well be that we're already fucked.
Yes, catastrophes are always good at waking people up to a cause. Maybe, in order to do that before it's too late, the governments should, y'know, help out a little bit. Create an energy shortage, find some way to make gasoline and heating oil prohibitively expensive without making it obvious through taxes. Maybe have terrorists blow up some russian pipelines and maybe there's a trade dispute with the Saudis coming. Surely something can be done. I know it sounds kinda bad at first, but this is our future we're talking about. If people need to really see something bad happening before they're willing to give up something, so be it. That whole "freedom" thing is just a recent and ultimately illusionary thing, anyway.
Is that sarcasm I am spotting?
I am not sure what you see as 'freedom' here, If your idea of freedom is to allow the public to fuck up the environment so much, "The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution (...)", then It I would say that is a very strange definition of freedom. I am driving almost each day with my bicycle trough Munich, from home to work, do I have to develope lung cancer or something so others enjoy their 'freedom' of driving cars? What has the burning of billions of tons in fossil fuel to do with 'freedom'? Where is my freedom to stay healthy? What if it happens that you are the next one to die from pollution? Or your girlfriend? Or maybe your future children becoming sick beacuse of the nitrate in our groundwater. I am really curious how people will enjoy their freedom, once absolutely necessary commodities become so expensive that most of what you earn is spend just purchasing drinking water, if millions are not going to outright die anyway due to famines. You do know, that we are right now facing a mass extinction event, right?
Researchers talk of ‘biological annihilation’ as study reveals billions of populations of animals have been lost in recent decades
A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is under way and is more severe than previously feared, according to research.
Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis and warn that it threatens the survival of human civilisation, with just a short window of time in which to act.
What we're talking about here, isn't freedom, we're talking about wealth, luxuries, accessories that make our lifes easier, we're talking about consumerism. At no point in history was consumerism equal to a democracy. Absolutely no one needs an iphone every 4 months, or 3 times a day meat, plastic bags at every corner or what ever. Did people enjoy less freedom in the 1950s because not everyone had a car and most people used public transport? Was Germany not a democracy? Was the United States not a democracy in 1860s or the 1920s? I am not saying we have to get back to the stone age or become agrarian socities, but it always surprises me how people can not even grasp the simple concept of consuming less.
If something isn't sustainable, then it simply isn't sustainable, the effects of our current lifestyle become more and more serious, not just in some third world countries but actually in places like Germany or the US as well and it's rather obvious that this is heading right in to a collapse because of possible cascade effects in climate change and the nature of exponential growth rates in our current economic model.
I would have expected a physicist to understand that before all others.
Here, you can watch what Harald Lesch, a physicist has to say about it (in German):
I sometimes feel like talking to obese people who do not seem to care how their own habbits harm them and they actually only change their lifestyle once the first heart attack hit them and almost killed them.
I am not sure what you see as 'freedom' here, If your idea of freedom is to allow the public to fuck up the environment so much, "The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution (...)", then It I would say that is a very strange definition of freedom. I am driving almost each day with my bicycle trough Munich, from home to work, do I have to develope lung cancer or something so others enjoy their 'freedom' of driving cars? What has the burning of billions of tons in fossil fuel to do with 'freedom'? Where is my freedom to stay healthy? What if it happens that you are the next one to die from pollution? Or your girlfriend? Or maybe your future children becoming sick beacuse of the nitrate in our groundwater. I am really curious how people will enjoy their freedom, once absolutely necessary commodities become so expensive that most of what you earn is spend just purchasing drinking water, if millions are not going to outright die anyway due to famines. You do know, that we are right now facing a mass extinction event, right?
Researchers talk of ‘biological annihilation’ as study reveals billions of populations of animals have been lost in recent decades
A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is under way and is more severe than previously feared, according to research.
Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis and warn that it threatens the survival of human civilisation, with just a short window of time in which to act.
What we're talking about here, isn't freedom, we're talking about wealth, luxuries, accessories that make our lifes easier, we're talking about consumerism. At no point in history was consumerism equal to a democracy. Absolutely no one needs an iphone every 4 months, or 3 times a day meat, plastic bags at every corner or what ever. Did people enjoy less freedom in the 1950s because not everyone had a car and most people used public transport? Was Germany not a democracy? Was the United States not a democracy in 1860s or the 1920s? I am not saying we have to get back to the stone age or become agrarian socities, but it always surprises me how people can not even grasp the simple concept of consuming less.
If something isn't sustainable, then it simply isn't sustainable, the effects of our current lifestyle become more and more serious, not just in some third world countries but actually in places like Germany or the US as well and it's rather obvious that this is heading right in to a collapse because of possible cascade effects in climate change and the nature of exponential growth rates in our current economic model.
I would have expected a physicist to understand that before all others.
Here, you can watch what Harald Lesch, a physicist has to say about it (in German):
I sometimes feel like talking to obese people who do not seem to care how their own habbits harm them and they actually only change their lifestyle once the first heart attack hit them and almost killed them.
Last edited:
No, absolutely no sarcasm here, no sir. Gotta break some eggs to make omelette. The people don't know what's best for them in the long run.
I guess the best thing to happen would be a serious of really bad Neonazi terror attacks all over Europe. That way a unified european anti-terror police would be justified, and some european anti-terror and anti-nazi legislation that overrides national law. That'd set a precedent, and then we can move to also set up EU laws regarding pollution and power consumption. Cars banned inside cities, gasoline heavily taxed, that kind of stuff. Slowly work towards dismantling most heavy industry as they consume too much energy, and increase the agrarian sector with the free work force from the industry. Of course, there's still the less-polluting high tech sector and the technical universities doing research and development, and while they're not that bad on the environment directly, they do bad things because technological progress leads to luxury goods and most importantly inequality. So that needs to be heavily regulated, any development needs to be approved for sustainability and justice. Any non-compliant researcher can find new work in the agrarian sector. It might sound a bit grim, but people have to not know what's best for them, someone must decide for them.
I guess the best thing to happen would be a serious of really bad Neonazi terror attacks all over Europe. That way a unified european anti-terror police would be justified, and some european anti-terror and anti-nazi legislation that overrides national law. That'd set a precedent, and then we can move to also set up EU laws regarding pollution and power consumption. Cars banned inside cities, gasoline heavily taxed, that kind of stuff. Slowly work towards dismantling most heavy industry as they consume too much energy, and increase the agrarian sector with the free work force from the industry. Of course, there's still the less-polluting high tech sector and the technical universities doing research and development, and while they're not that bad on the environment directly, they do bad things because technological progress leads to luxury goods and most importantly inequality. So that needs to be heavily regulated, any development needs to be approved for sustainability and justice. Any non-compliant researcher can find new work in the agrarian sector. It might sound a bit grim, but people have to not know what's best for them, someone must decide for them.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
It is a perfect example of, 'the ends justify the means'.
Using draconian measures for the 'greater good', is easy to talk about but much harder to implement.
And who is to say that said draconian measures wouldn't just introduce or create an even worse situation?
Using draconian measures for the 'greater good', is easy to talk about but much harder to implement.
And who is to say that said draconian measures wouldn't just introduce or create an even worse situation?
Surely there's nothing that stricter laws and tighter control over the population can't fix.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Like I said, it comes from a place of good. But then again, we are talking about humans and we are not exactly known for being smart.
And all that false flag shit? It is bound to blow up in someones face.
And all that false flag shit? It is bound to blow up in someones face.
So whats your solution?
CO2 tax and heavy investment in next generation nuclear fission and fusion technology, improvement of public transport, and a de-ideologization of climate research. I'm sorry, but Harald Lesch for example, as good as a teacher he is, is not trustworthy. Some of the things he says about nuclear power are so utterly and blatantly wrong that he should hand in his degree retroactively.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Germany is not calling the shots in the world, USA is. And they are happy to keep building huge ass factories, destroying nature, etc. What should be done about that though, oh Hassknecht the Wise?
yfk12
Degenerate who belongs on a cross
Well, if it makes you feel better, we're not calling the shots nearly as much anymore, since our dear leader has all the diplomatic prowess of an alcoholic raccoon.
He didn't ask about how it can be implemented all over the world, just what the general solution could be in my opinion.
Also, your continued brigading of me gets on my nerves. Cut it out, or this warning point will quickly multiply and end in a ban.
HydroFlame
The Vanishing Act
There's no way to ask this without being blunt, so I'll just ask: Does Scalper have something against people from any other country besides his? The way he has spoken to Hass, yfk, and Arnust to name a few, and the way he tries to make my country seem like the worst in the world (and hey, I'm not championing that it's the best), makes me think he's got some kind of paranoia.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Arnust? He's my homie. When did I ever offend him?
Btw, you may be a nice lady but you're still a noob here. I remember a time when Sander saw to it that noobs weren't jumping around all up in people's faces.
HydroFlame
The Vanishing Act
It's hard to determine who's talking to who in threads when quotes aren't used, so I apologize for that first bit.
I'm not trying to be rude. It's just you make it seem like you truly hate Americans.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
This is the internet. Try to build up some resistance to negative stuff, especially when it's very generally aimed at the politics of your nation. If you visit Europe as a tourist, it might be a wise idea not to proclaim loudly you're an American, not everyone will celebrate it.