- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The question didn't specify the region, so I replied in an objective and universal way.
Make no mistake, I am against irresponsible food industries blindly pursuing money at any costs. But the guilty one here is not the fast food itself, look beyond your immediate experiences...
That's an interesting question, what to do? Will the skilled people have to carry the unskilled ones on their back? Work and work just so the government somehow finds a way to direct some of their profit to those who can't get a job?
I think it goes deeper than that. When technology makes unskilled labor obsolete, there will be all these things and services which we can receive without requiring another human being's efforts. The machines will do it all for us. Consequently, money will have a whole new meaning. What will you be paying for when you buy something which required no human effort in its making? The way things are going now, you will probably pay for the patents of the products and the people who first put the machines together. They will set the machines once, (by then the machines will be able to fix each other, which is not so far away) and then just sit back protected by patent laws and receiving money with no effort until some better technology comes up.
What to do when technology makes unskilled labor obsolete? Get rid of monetary economy and patent laws, these belong to a time when people did things to people.
What to replace it with? I have a few ideas, but I'm not sure. Anyways, we should better start thinking seriously about it, before people start siting back and taking our money without any effort.
Yeah totally agree with you on the numbers matter. I was just wondering about the whole "feelings" excuse in itself, but I probably said a bunch of nonsense since I know nothing about the science behind it...
About the fruits, I was thinking that if you eat an apple, you don't have to kill the apple tree, but if you eat potatoes.... =P
Yes, if we find out that plants can feel pain as much as animals do, I'd feel less bad about eating meat, because this would mean that it can't be helped, we will always cause pain to something in order to live. It would also change the way I see vegetarians and vegans.
I guess that if plants do feel, the most moral choice would be to only eat products which wouldn't kill either animals or plants. Dairy products, fruits and so on...
Environmentally friendly products are more costly, in terms of research and materials
Is this true for every case? Research is still being done for non-environmentally friendly products as well... What do you mean by more costly?
no one does anything for the environment is because it requires more effort.
I don't think this is how everything is today, much less how everything will be forever. Japanese people are very busy, but not to the point of not being able to separate their garbage. Assuming that doing things for the environment will always require sacrifice is a dangerous way of thinking which has unfortunately spread around. The options are not "buy a pet bottle or drink from your thermos", there are many unexplored possibilities out there. How about "always have a bottle with you and you can refill it anywhere with a variety of refreshing drinks which haven't been sitting inside your bag the whole day"? Sounds more appetizing, no? Maybe not even that would be a perfect solution in terms of environment or convenience, but I just made a nice alternative up, don't you think that if we put our efforts on the right place, we could get to a nice solution? My fear is that this "environment and convenience can't go together" mindset might slow down the coming up of nice solutions which everyone is happy with.
Producers have also made the most "convenient" choice when making the products that we love and that make our lives oh so convenient.
In this part I agree with you, but to a certain extent. Yes, producers have been making decisions which are convenient to them in economic terms. Bur personally, I don't think money is an end in and of itself. I wouldn't say big CEOs get happy simply by making heaps of money. In fact, many of them say they hate what they have to do to the environment, but the system in which they are in doesn't give them options. So I agree with you that economic convenience is bad: far from being a pleasant comfort to human lives, is a sad side effect of the sick system we live in. When I talk about convenience, I talk about making lives pleasant.
As for the rest of your argument, I agree with you that for now the best we can do is control our impulses as much as we can. I just don't think this should be considered the final objective and the one and only way to save our planet. We are smart, CEOs are smart, the system is DUMB! We just gotta do something about it....
How much more informative can an encyclopedia be than being updated real time as the events and information are changed in the world? How much more user friendly can it get than saying "this encyclopedia was made by people like you, and your suggestions are welcome too!"?
Wikipedia it is.
It sucks to hear about your friend. But definetely, Brasil wasn't a good option of a place to go to without a concrete plan to make money beforehand. Brazilians themselves, and I'm talking about people with college degrees, are struggling to make money just to buy things more basic than a plane ticket (which is considered a luxury to the average Brazilian). In an environment like this, skills don't really count because opportunity isn't there on the first place. There was a big fuss about how valuable is a college degree in Brasil a few years ago after a news report showed many lawyers and engineers lining up hoping to get a position as jenitors. If it's hard for them, imagine to a foreigner who can't even speak the language... Conclusion: always have an escape plan before considering going to under-developed countries...
When it comes to developed countries though, the story might change a bit. For example, in Japan, anyone fluent in English (not only native speakers) can easily find part-time jobs teaching, which might pay 20 to 30 dollars per hour. It's only a matter of patience to find students (the website www.findateacher.com helps a lot of people)... Also, since they love foreign faces, if you are persistent enough you can get a job as an extra on movies or TV shows, which pay relatively well... I had a friend who managed to live only with the English teaching and the TV thing, not only in Japan but also in India...
So yeah, of course it depends on where you are... If you go to a place where the locals themselves are in trouble, it's unlikely that you will manage to do much better without proper planning. I guess the best you can do is wait to be deported =P
Hope it helped =)
This debate was not intended to be about Christianity or any particular traditions, just about the general idea of tradition, that which "invokes the principle that old ways of doing things are safer, more reliable and hence better than new, which are based on untested ways."
When someone goes against tradition, by questioning old ways of doing things or looking for new ways, progress might come from it, but also some bad changes might happen. So I'm not saying that overcoming traditions is necessarily always good. The truth is that while some traditions are harmless, others aren't. Coming up with new ways of approaching problems in which tradition had been failing can be progress. Progress can come from the end of traditions.
On the other hand, sticking to traditions which are beneficial to humanity cannot be called progress, because progress means relative improvement. If old traditions are simply carried on, this cannot be called progress, because nothing changed. (Of course that if a healthy tradition spreads to more people it means improvement, but in the way of thinking itself, there was no progress) Sticking to traditions is not progress.
Progress is, by definition, always good. The internet makes all kinds of music more accessible to the music lovers; the internet is progress. The atomic bomb killed a lot of people; the atomic bomb is not progress. So where does tradition fit in this improvement of our lives, in progress? Let's take your little study example.
You've observed that your tradition of studying has been helping you, so you stick to it faithfully. The same way, if you had a tradition of drinking 3 shots of tequila every night, you should be able to realize by yourself that this is bad and cut the tradition. Just because some form of behavior has survived over time, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good one. We still have and should decide by ourselves which behaviors to follow or not. That's progress.
So is tradition an obstacle to progress? Based on the description on my first paragraph, I'd say yes. If people are following a tradition just because they think this is safer and assume that just because it has survived over time it's beneficial, they might be retarding progress for themselves and for others.