Should some of your freedom be restricted in order to preserve resources?

[jverne]

Should you be restricted to do, buy , make or manipulate something for the sake of preserving resources and/or not to impact on the environment?

Argument your answer


EDIT: Seem to be some confusion...if you are for any amount of restriction then technically you have to vote yes. The other answer is for really special cases. Like really good ideas and stuff that is out of the box thinking or for people who can't decide and have some other opinion.

And obviously i'm talking about the impact that it might have on the biosphere

 

[FrostedxB]

Should you be restricted to do, buy , make or manipulate something for the sake of preserving resources and/or not to impact on the environment?

Argument your answer

Depends on what, like a car? I hate those hybrids pieces of shit, more stuff can break then is really worth fixing. I wouldn't mind if car companies had to make more efficient cars, but not making the consumers buy Toyota Prius-style vehicles.


Something small, like light bulbs? Well sure, from what I understand, energy saving light bulbs last longer.

Paper? It would be easier/more fun if schools went from having everything on paper to having it all online. Taking all of your tests and notes etc... on specially developed programs.

 

[Krynn72]

Dont be stupid. Its a case of moderation.

 

[Vegeta897]

The question boils down to, how trustworthy people to make intelligent decisions? If everyone was smart we wouldn't need any laws. Finding the balance is what it's all about.

I guess this is sort of obvious and doesn't answer the question, but I'm too lazy to get into that and it's probably impossible to do by just discussing it.

 

[jverne]

Depends on what, like a car? I hate those hybrids pieces of shit, more stuff can break then is really worth fixing. I wouldn't mind if car companies had to make more efficient cars, but not making the consumers buy Toyota Prius-style vehicles.


Something small, like light bulbs? Well sure, from what I understand, energy saving light bulbs last longer.

Paper? It would be easier/more fun if schools went from having everything on paper to having it all online. Taking all of your tests and notes etc... on specially developed programs.

It's hard to give each example of everything, judgment should be up to you...probably more of a ethics kind of question, whether if you'd be for or against.


We can talk about extremes, mild restrictions or no restrictions, that's why i specified to argument your answer.



I'm not really surprised by the one who voted the third answer.

Dont be stupid. Its a case of moderation.

I know what you mean...but you must define what is your definition of moderation.
I wouldn't really call having a 35" plasma TV instead of 40" moderation.

The question boils down to, how trustworthy people to make intelligent decisions? If everyone was smart we wouldn't need any laws. Finding the balance is what it's all about.

I guess this is sort of obvious and doesn't answer the question, but I'm too lazy to get into that and it's probably impossible to do by just discussing it.

Actually i don't think it's that obvious. Many people have many desires.

 

[Vegeta897]

Resisting those desires is what makes a smart person.

 

[PvtRyan]

No. Just increase the price, either naturally (scarcity = higher price) or artificially (tax it).

 

[Krynn72]

I know what you mean...but you must define what is your definition of moderation.

What do you think it means? It means we find the most efficient ways to to have the most luxuries possible while doing the most healthy affect on the environment. If that means everyone has to deal with a 35in TV instead of 40in to make the environmental impact acceptable, then so be it.

 

[jverne]

No. Just increase the price, either naturally (scarcity = higher price) or artificially (tax it).

I've seen a bunch of people who'd shoot you for that statement. You probably know who am i referring to? Hint...they like guns

Edit: actually no...i love guns too...but i'm not one of those people

What do you think it means? It means we find the most efficient ways to to have the most luxuries possible while doing the most healthy affect on the environment. If that means everyone has to deal with a 35in TV instead of 40in to make the environmental impact acceptable, then so be it.

What about a really efficient 22" or is that to un-luxurious?

 

[Sulkdodds]

The obvious ground principle is to restrict as much liberty as is necessary to ensure maximum liberty in the future!

For example, severely restricting air travel in the present so as to avert massive humanitarian crisis due to global warming somewhere down the line.

The real questions are all specific ones of how much restriction must be imposed, and in what ways, to most effectively ensure a better future, or, what's actually necessary, and whether those who tell us of necessity are actually telling the truth/making a decent estimate, etc, etc.

 

[Viperidae]

Wildlife reserves?

 

[Dan]

Should you be restricted to do, buy , make or manipulate something for the sake of preserving resources and/or not to impact on the environment?

Argument your answer

impact the environment...

What do people mean when they moan about the environment? Really, I think it is more of a catchword than anything tangible. The environment? You mean the inanimate objects that surround us? The ecosystem? The entire planet (mostly nickel and iron). Why is impacting these things good or bad? The ecosystem is always changing, things die out there. These are all just concepts. They don't have feelings. They aren't people. I think what most people really mean when they mention hurting the environment are polar bears and baluga whales.

The environment is doing just fine thank you. It has existed for billions of years, and it will continue to exist. If you want to moan (and I know you do), moan about the future of humanity, or your own future, not the feelings of some imaginary concept that is defined by humans.

 

[FrostedxB]

It's hard to give each example of everything, judgment should be up to you...probably more of a ethics kind of question, whether if you'd be for or against.


We can talk about extremes, mild restrictions or no restrictions, that's why i specified to argument your answer.



I'm not really surprised by the one who voted the third answer.

Hence why I gave examples of both extreme and mild restrictions. It is all in personal opinion, some people don't want to lose the safety of their gigantic Hummer while others know that if they don't give up some luxuries, there won't be an Earth to drive those Hummers around on.

A good compromise would be somewhere exactly in the middle, big and safe, but still maintain fuel efficiency. These cars exist, but (at least from what I see in America) people have their heads shoved so far up their asses that they can see the inside of their nipples.

Yes, I know I am giving an argument about cars, but the same can go for everything, from TV's to microwaves. People say they need a good compromise between whats good for the environment and whats good for themselves, but that median exists already, those people just don't look hard enough.

 

[jverne]

impact the environment...

What do people mean when they moan about the environment? Really, I think it is more of a catchword than anything tangible. The environment? You mean the inanimate objects that surround us? The ecosystem? The entire planet (mostly nickel and iron). Why is impacting these things good or bad? The ecosystem is always changing, things die out there. These are all just concepts. They don't have feelings. They aren't people. I think what most people really mean when they mention hurting the environment are polar bears and baluga whales.

The environment is doing just fine thank you. It has existed for billions of years, and it will continue to exist. If you want to moan (and I know you do), moan about the future of humanity, or your own future, not the feelings of some imaginary concept that is defined by humans.

I believe most here understood who/what is this thread about. But thank you for mentioning it.
How do you value animals?

The obvious ground principle is to restrict as much liberty as is necessary to ensure maximum liberty in the future!

For example, severely restricting air travel in the present so as to avert massive humanitarian crisis due to global warming somewhere down the line.

The real questions are all specific ones of how much restriction must be imposed, and in what ways, to most effectively ensure a better future, or, what's actually necessary, and whether those who tell us of necessity are actually telling the truth/making a decent estimate, etc, etc.

Air travel...ok. But our models can't predict the exact long term impact of those, where does that leave us? On what basis do we restrict them?

 

[Acepilotf14]

Democracy is non-negotiable.

 

[Krynn72]

What about a really efficient 22" or is that to un-luxurious?

If people decide its too unluxurious then stick with the 35. If/when people are educated to the pros and cons of the situation, let them find a compromise thats acceptable to the most people, then regulate accordingly so we don't get people building bullet proof yahts with missile defense systems while most people stick with their standard economical 1 family luxury yaht.

Also, I voted no in your poll because its stupid and biased.

 

[Dan]

I believe most here understood who/what is this thread about. But thank you for mentioning it.
How do you value animals?

I don't have any particular inherent value for animals in general. I like my dog, I like horses, I like to eat chickens, I don't like silverfish. I think most people are the same.

Air travel...ok. But our models can't predict the exact long term impact of those, where does that leave us? On what basis do we restrict them?

On the basis of who flaps their arms the hardest and yells the loudest.

 

[jverne]

Democracy is non-negotiable.

Oxymoron?


What about the opinion of minorities?

 

[Acepilotf14]

You did not play Fallout 3, huh?

 

[jverne]

If people decide its too unluxurious then stick with the 35. If/when people are educated to the pros and cons of the situation, let them find a compromise thats acceptable to the most people, then regulate accordingly so we don't get people building bullet proof yahts with missile defense systems while most people stick with their standard economical 1 family luxury yaht.

Also, I voted no in your poll because its stupid and biased.

So your argument is education and democratic vote? That means the majority must be educated. IMO that must be really hard to achieve in reality, especially if there's a time line involved. And there are people who are educated, have power but would still be against it.

 

[Dan]

Impacting the biosphere is just as stupid a reason for doing something as impacting the environment. Sulk had it right.

 

[Krynn72]

So your argument is education and democratic vote? That means the majority must be educated. IMO that must be really hard to achieve in reality, especially if there's a time line involved. And there are people who are educated, have power but would still be against it.

You're right. Better to just regulate the **** out of everything. History shows thats the best way to solve any problem. Especially those higher educated and powerful people. Regulations really keep them in check. :upstare:

 

[Holy Toaster]

I voted yes simply because all of my reasoning boiled down to "I guess". To be honest I don't know enough about how much things impact the environment so I can't give a well informed opinion like the rest of you.

 

[Remus]

ITT Avatar corupted Jverne.

That's the only explanation I have for this sudden interest in "environmental issues".

Also on topic I agree with Dan and Krynn.

 

[Dan]

I voted yes simply because all of my reasoning boiled down to "I guess". To be honest I don't know enough about how much things impact the environment so I can't give a well informed opinion like the rest of you.

So you would vote to have your liberties restricted over any issue you aren't well informed on? Makes sense considering the crazy state of airports.

 

[jverne]

Impacting the biosphere is just as stupid a reason for doing something as impacting the environment. Sulk had it right.

The last time i've checked the biosphere encompasses humans also...so?

You're right. Better to just regulate the **** out of everything. History shows thats the best way to solve any problem. Especially those higher educated and powerful people. Regulations really keep them in check. :upstare:

Well if those higher educated and powerful people would be also environmentally conscious, might be different But then again, i don't know how many of them are there. Lot's of power usually corrupts people.

But you still exclude the educated ones that are openly against this notion and don't care for their impact.

IMO education alone is not enough. Other measures of pressure should be involved. (by pressure i don't mean beating someone up if that's what you're thinking)

ITT Avatar corupted Jverne.

That's the only explanation I have for this sudden interest in "environmental issues".

Also on topic I agree with Dan and Krynn.

Would you be shocked if i told you i haven't seen avatar? I've been environmentally aware since i was 16.

So you would vote to have your liberties restricted over any issue you aren't well informed on? Makes sense considering the crazy state of airports.

See that's why i didn't yet vote. Personally for me no restrictions would be needed since i'm educated AND can self control (to some amount). Am i mistaken if told you there are people who realize the environmental issue but go and buy a wasteful product or buy stuff just because, they can't control themselves.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

See that's why i didn't yet vote. Personally for me no restrictions would be needed since i'm educated AND can self control (to some amount).

...so... you're only interested in restricting other people's rights... but not your own, because... you're so smart?

Your entire argument essentially boils down to "Why can't I make everyone do what I think is best?!"

Are you becoming Numbers?

 

[Dan]

He has been aware of the environment since he was 16 for Christ sake. The guy is a frickin' genius. Put him in charge.

 

[jverne]

...so... you're only interested in restricting other people's rights... but not your own, because... you're so smart?

Your entire argument essentially boils down to "Why can't I make everyone do what I think is best?!"

Are you becoming Numbers?

Oh here we go again. Actually i'd love it to have my way. And yes part of me is like numbers. But i can control myself (not that numbers can't, but i can only speak for myself). That's why you wont see me often demand banning cars everywhere.

A compromise must be made obviously. But generally i'm leaning on the "yes" side of the poll. I don't deny my selfishness. If you think you're a completely altruistic person...then i salute you.

He has been aware of the environment since he was 16 for Christ sake. The guy is a frickin' genius. Put him in charge.

Did i ever say my views are the only one right? Did i? really?

 

[Dan]

I don't let the outcomes of systems which are complex beyond my understanding influence my decision making with respect to influencing those systems. To do so would be irrational, because you cannot have any feedback or knowledge about the effects of that decision. You have no idea whatsoever what the net effect of buying a tv is on the "environment" or the economy, or the insanely large network of interconnected systems that will be influenced by that tiny purchase. To go to a scale as large as the ecosystem, and then ignore, other equally distant effects, such as the social structure, and global economics would be to wear blinders. How do you juggle this tiny effect across such an enormous scale. You don't. You just look at pictures of seals and make the connection that TV is bad. I am sure that there are situations where purchasing a hummer would be beneficial to whatever you think the environment is and what benefits it.

So instead, I look at the factors and results which I can control and understand. My bank account is a really simple one, also the size of my apartment, and my desires. I know very well how purchasing a consumer device might affect these factors, so those are what I use to base my decision on.

Also, you still talking about hurting and helping the environment, which as I pointed out doesn't make any sense. How are you measuring what is good and bad with respect to this environment?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

If you think you're a completely altruistic person...then i salute you.

...okay... not quite sure where that came from, but no, I don't think that. I also don't think complete altruism is necessary to live a good life or be a moral person, or that we should force people to be altruistic.

Did i ever say my views are the only one right? Did i? really?

No, you just made a thread asking people if we should make it illegal to not do what you think is best, I've no idea where Dan got such a ridiculous notion from.

 

[Acepilotf14]

If you had self-control you wouldn't make these threads.

 

[Escaep]

Would you be shocked if i told you i haven't seen avatar? I've been environmentally aware since i was 16.

.

Are you self-aware yet?

 

[jverne]

I don't let the outcomes of systems which are complex beyond my understanding influence my decision making with respect to influencing those systems. To do so would be irrational, because you cannot have any feedback or knowledge about the effects of that decision. You have no idea whatsoever what the net effect of buying a tv is on the "environment" or the economy, or the insanely large network of interconnected systems that will be influenced by that tiny purchase. To go to a scale as large as the ecosystem, and then ignore, other equally distant effects, such as the social structure, and global economics would be to wear blinders. How do you juggle this tiny effect across such an enormous scale. You don't. You just look at pictures of seals and make the connection that TV is bad. I am sure that there are situations where purchasing a hummer would be beneficial to whatever you think the environment is and what benefits it.

So instead, I look at the factors and results which I can control and understand. My bank account is a really simple one, also the size of my apartment, and my desires. I know very well how purchasing a consumer device might affect these factors, so those are what I use to base my decision on.

Also, you still talking about hurting and helping the environment, which as I pointed out doesn't make any sense. How are you measuring what is good and bad with respect to this environment?

One way would be to look at the energy for production/usage. For this instance we could argue less is better...from a purely technical standpoint. How much should be sacrificed should be left to the community, but i don't deny i'd like it if the verdict would be in favor of my views. There is a selfishness factor in here.

...okay... not quite sure where that came from, but no, I don't think that. I also don't think complete altruism is necessary to live a good life or be a moral person, or that we should force people to be altruistic.

Ok, i don't disagree

No, you just made a thread asking people if we should make it illegal to not do what you think is best, I've no idea where Dan got such a ridiculous notion from.

Yes...i TOTALLY didn't make a poll and demanded to argument your answers whatever they might be and i totally did "make it illegal to not do what you think is best". Come on

If you had self-control you wouldn't make these threads.

Are you self-aware yet?

Wha???
It just goes to show how biased people are, that understand "environmentally aware since 16" as a being a righteous ****. If i held this opinion 100 years ago people would be like "um, yeah whatever...". All i wanted to say with that is that this is not a newly learned thing, i did pick it up early. And obviously you understand self control as me living in a ****ing hut or something out of courtesy to nature.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'm biased towards idiots. It should be mandated for households with an average IQ or less. The smart people should enjoy the temporary resources.

 

[jverne]

I'm biased towards idiots. It should be mandated for households with an average IQ or less. The smart people should enjoy the temporary resources.

At leas you're being honest.

I have a feeling most people here deep inside also have such feelings and possibly even act on them, but talk very differently. I may be wrong...

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I think I could make it into a feasable plan, just need a strong talker and more details to make suckers (who make up most of population) support it. Make it swift and quick, then delve into actually making new technologies (possibly already existent but need large scale implementing). With a strong oligarchy, anything is possible!

 

[jverne]

I think I could make it into a feasable plan, just need a strong talker and more details to make suckers (who make up most of population) support it. Make it swift and quick, then delve into actually making new technologies (possibly already existent but need large scale implementing). With a strong oligarchy, anything is possible!

wasn't there a saying "a benevolent dictator is better than a dysfunctional democracy"

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I think it's truth.

 

[jverne]

I think it's truth.

It probably boils down to, if the majority of people are considered ignorant and only a few ones are smart. This eventually leads to...are all people equal? Hard to tell...well sometimes...

Ok i'm somewhat derailing my own thread. Back to the issue.


Oh, just one thing...perfect democracy requires complete knowledge of the issue being voted on. Free market demands full workforce flexibility and no monopolies. Communism demands altruism.
Why is democracy the only right way? I don't really have a final answer i can find flaws in each system.