Rights and we responsibilities.

[chilli]

This topic branched off from "300: a US psyop?"

I'm not sure if there is a better way to do this, but here is where its started:

Its not just what you can and can't do. The powers that be make it so you have be part of the system so you can live.

For example if you want some thing as basic as a house to live in you have to play their game for 20 plus years just to put a roof over your head. Being locked into something for so long to supply such a basic necessity is just wrong. But this is how the powers that be have things organised, the rich get richer while everyday joe has to slave his guts out.

Its easier for the 'everyday joe' to buy a house in our society than probably any other time in history... do you think working for 20 years is an unreasonable amount of time to pay off a house and land?

I think its completely unreasonable - look at the world around us - we are animals, no different to fish, birds or lizards. Their main goal is to live life without dying an early death. Their everyday life is simple - eat, sleep, communicate, fornicate, reproduce, protect and enjoy. Why is it that ours is so different? Granted ours contains these things, but it also comes with much more baggage - taxes, laws, governments, dole bludgers, rich wankers, politicians, pop stars, etc, etc.

We should have the right to a cheap house, a good job providing consistant income and the right to enjoy life at our own risk. We should have the right to live in harmony with the world around us without creating so much needless destruction. We all deserve the rights to cheap fuel economical and safe cars. But somehow all of these simple things are unnecesserily complicated.

I think its completely unreasonable - look at the world around us - we are animals, no different to fish, birds or lizards. Their main goal is to live life without dying an early death. Their everyday life is simple - eat, sleep, communicate, fornicate, reproduce, protect and enjoy. Why is it that ours is so different?

I don't think it necessarily is that different, your description of animals everyday life sounds pretty much like a description of mine. What I think you're missing is that animals work to eat, they generally spend most of their time eating or finding food to eat. Animals don't own property, if you want to own land and have people spend thousands of hours building a house for you to live in, why the fuck do you think you should have the 'right' to have that cheap? Where do people get these rights?

Granted ours contains these things, but it also comes with much more baggage - taxes, laws, governments, dole bludgers, rich wankers, politicians, pop stars, etc, etc.

We live in one of the most privileged societies in the world, the majority of the world doesn't get the option to spend 20 years working for a house they can own, they work 16 hours a day just to eat and feed their families. I'm glad we have laws and governments, not so sure about pop stars and taxes though. By most of the world's standards, we are the rich wankers.

We should have the right to a cheap house, a good job providing consistant income and the right to enjoy life at our own risk. We should have the right to live in harmony with the world around us without creating so much needless destruction. We all deserve the rights to cheap fuel economical and safe cars. But somehow all of these simple things are unnecesserily complicated.

Not sure where you get the idea of rights to a cheap house, cheap fuel and economical and safe cars. The good news is you do have the right and the ability to live in harmony with the world without creating needless destruction and to enjoy your life at your own risk... so are you?

We live in one of the most privileged societies in the world, the majority of the world doesn't get the option to spend 20 years working for a house they can own, they work 16 hours a day just to eat and feed their families.

But why is it that we cant all live on the same level, instead of having small societies living in struggle while there are arrogant pricks rolling around in their riches and destorying the planet to further their piles of gold... I think we (the whole human civilisation) should be on par with one another, living comfortably (we certainly have the resources, manpower and knowledge) and respecting one another as well as our planet (and the universe, eventually).

By most of the world's standards, we are the rich wankers.

I know, and that is something that I feel uneasy about. We have the ability to contribute to the rest of the world, but when it comes down to it, most of us are keen to leave our air conditioned offices, go home to our little families and flick on the idiot box for the latest installment of Futurama, Neighbours, Prison Break or whatever the latest trend is... There doesnt seem to be much to our little lives other than this. Every now and then a few of the masses decides its time to help by recycling or sending a couple dollars to the poor in Africa, or something like that - but it takes much more than that. Will we ever see past our everyday lives and actually take control of our worlds future?

Not sure where you get the idea of rights to a cheap house, cheap fuel and economical and safe cars. The good news is you do have the right and the ability to live in harmony with the world without creating needless destruction and to enjoy your life at your own risk... so are you?

I get that idea from the fact that we have the ability to have these things. We have the resouces, time, man power, hell, we even have the robot power! I think it should be a right to have access to a cheaper car - perhaps a hybrid car that runs on hemp seed oil and hydrogen for the same price as the current petrol standards - or a current petrol standard car with all the safety features of modern cars at a much cheaper price to enhance driver safety and reduce accidents.

As for me living in harmony with the world without causing needless destruction and enjoying life, well, yes I guess I am. I grow cacti and various other plants in my garden to keep me in touch with nature and to help me keep focused with my own goals and such. I try to avoid causing needless destruction by doing my bit wherever I can - simple things like only leaving a few footprints on the face of the earth - not going through and pulling the place to bits just because I feel like it. And enjoying life - I certainly give it my best - at times it can be hard due to the fact that we seem to be in a selfish society which is spoiling the planet because we need things like cosmetics and other seemingly somewhat wasteful things. but for the most part - I am a very happy person to be alive in such a beautiful world surrounded by so many wonderful things - I guess the tricky part is focusing on the beauty and not the ugly...

The point I'm trying to make is that from when we are born our lives revolve around being trained to be able to be part of the system. There is no other option. Although there are alot of benefits from this which is not a bad thing as things could me much worse, there are in my opinion to many strings attached to make it a good thing.

Sure houses are easy enough to buy but that amount of debt sitting on your shoulders is something that I am not comfortable with. There are so many things I would like to do and see but can't if I have to focus my energies into paying for the place I rest my head at night. A society with all the bells and whistles looks nice and shiney but the constant strain to hold onto them I find very draining. It makes me long for a simpler life. Sure this kind of life would be harsher but at the same time healthier and more fullfilling.

Harrys got it right when it comes to freedom in society. we are kind of bread like cattle, we get born, go to school and learn what we are told, leave school and work, reproduce and repeat for the rest of our lives to maintain a social "standard". thus being locked in the system, i very much agree with that. But that said, during the ride of life one can open their own eyes amd see their own freedoms, with risk ( i guess that aint real freedom) but the choice (freedom) is their.

wow, this topics got going...

first ov all i suppose we have to decide what we mean by "freedom".

generally people consider "freedom" to be their "rights". Like to "free speach" or the "right to vote" or the "right to own a gun" &, not to forget, the "right to live in dignity—free of fear, coercion, violence and discrimination."

On the whole, modern western democracies tend to preserve these freedoms quite well in their own countries. Unfortunately living in one of the most privileged societies in the world many of the "freedoms" we enjoy come directly from the exploitation ov workers in less privilaged societies & from trading w/nations who exploit their citizens "freedom". rich nations remain rich only as long as they can keep other nations poorer.

& then there's the poor old ecosystem, exploited to fuck as a resource in a system that continues to push growth as the main goal in a time ov dwindling resources.

we used to be "free" to have swimming pools in our yards, throw water around......now law says we've lost that right, but laws to limit industrial use would impinge too much on the freedom ov the company to to business.

but that's all politics....when it comes down to it the "right to shelter" (our constitution drawing on the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights identifies housing as a human right), is where "they've got you by the balls" & how most become "wage slaves".

But stone walls do not a prison make, being tied to a house or a job is no reason to lose your identity or individuality. Freedom, most likely, is a state ov mind.

OK, here is another question: Should the basic necessities of life come at a basic cost?

[nabraxas]

Should the basic necessities of life come at a basic cost?

i'll take a stance & say no.

basic necessities should come free. costs could probably quite easily be met if business started to pay a fairer proportion for their use ov resources like water, electricity & freight.

however, if basics like healthcare, water/gas/electricity supply etc are to be paid for from public funds it is my opinion that an income tax type ov funding deal is preferable to putting them in the market which generally tends to create a two tier system for those that can & can't pay.

[DocAzz]

Yer right Nabraxas - it should come free.

Look at Australia as an example: we have more natural resources than almost any other country on the planet. We, by all rights, should never be paying tax at all. All we would need is to place a small levy on all natural resources used by business and industry.

I don't know about other states, but the government is no longer borrowing money to build public infrastructe... it is just allowing banks to OWN roads. Maquarie Bank owns TransUrban, the company running the M2 and M7 motorways. Not only will the tolls on the road never disspear, THEY KEEP GOING UP! One would have figured that Maquarie Bank (A bank that pays more million-dollar salaries every year than ANY other company in Aus!) would have had the financial foresight to factor inflation into the original cost of the toll. The truth is, they did... and they also know we can't do a goddamn thing about it, so they just keep jacking it up. It now costs, in tolls ALONE, $84 per week for someone (living in the hills district) to travel to work in sydney. $84 in road tolls each week. It goes up if they use the M7 motorway to get onto the M2!!!

People just bend over and take it. Why?

How can it not piss people off enough to cause them to take action??

Our whole government is quite obviously on 'the take' from large companies to keep them large, and us small.

They should be working for Australia.... not having Australia work for them!

[ENtiTY]

Good god Azz $84 a week just go to work and back! Thats down right robbery!

I guess you are free to do what you like in this country as long as you have the money. Few have freedom, most have not.

[Kenny Blister]

Its not just what you can and can't do. The powers that be make it so you have be part of the system so you can live.

For example if you want some thing as basic as a house to live in you have to play their game for 20 plus years just to put a roof over your head. Being locked into something for so long to supply such a basic necessity is just wrong. But this is how the powers that be have things organised, the rich get richer while everyday joe has to slave his guts out.

I think you are less likely to pursue subversive courses of action, in protest of State-committed injustices, that could potentially jeopardise your ability to maintain such responsibilities as a mortgage and family. If I (a proverbial loner ) was to become a political prisoner it would put no economical pressure on anyone, whereas Ace, for example, being a family man has to consider how the house will get payed and his child fed.

We should have the right to a cheap house, a good job providing consistant income and the right to enjoy life at our own risk. We should have the right to live in harmony with the world around us without creating so much needless destruction. We all deserve the rights to cheap fuel economical and safe cars. But somehow all of these simple things are unnecesserily complicated.

Animals don't own property, if you want to own land and have people spend thousands of hours building a house for you to live in, why the fuck do you think you should have the 'right' to have that cheap? Where do people get these rights?

Ahh, the right to self-determination, but where do we draw the line? When others' right to self determination is impeded?

Ace, you could get a cheap house, it might just be in a dodgy neighbourhood and have no running water. Quality of housing is subjective. A house meeting your standards might not meet the standards that Kerry Stokes expects from a house. Likewise, a farmer in Chad has ideals of housing that may not necessarily meet yours.

We should have the right to live in harmony with the world around us without creating so much needless destruction

A utopian wonderland? lol, I let my mind wander there too. The problem is we want more than we need. You would agree that people like Stokes and Packer have more than they need. What about the rest of us? We take more than we need to. Is the expectation of quality housing, reliable transport... in fact, the hugely convenient priveleged lifestyles we lead, more than we need? If global equality is what we seek, then the answer is yes.

Wish I could read and reply some more, back to work

[DocAzz]

Good god Azz $84 a week just go to work and back! Thats down right robbery!

I guess you are free to do what you like in this country as long as you have the money. Few have freedom, most have not.

Factor in petrol, maintainence, insurance, and registration of your vehicle.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Debt slavery?

[DocAzz]

Debt slavery?

Exactly. It brings me back to my question... What will it take to get people to take action against this???

We only cop it because we think we're the only one. "What can I do?"

You're not the only one - EVERYONE else has the shits about it. If someone doesn't, then they have vested interests in your money.

And honestly, so what if you were the only one? you may not make much of a difference, but you fucking tried!

Maybe shoot me a PM if I've inspired some anger and have lit a fire in ye bellies!

[chilli]

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the debt people get in with is due to basic greed. People buy a house or a car that they can't afford then they spend the next thirty years paying it off. Admittedly, banks and loan companies prey on this, but its not as if anyone's forcing people into it... my wife and still rent after 6 years of marriage, because although we could easily get finance and buy a nice house, we don't want to get tied down and end up paying three times the value of the house.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think people should have the right to basic shelter, but this might be something as simple as a flat or even a caravan, which are still comparitively luxurious compared to how much of the world lives.

[nabraxas]

utopian wonderland? lol, I let my mind wander there too. The problem is we want more than we need. You would agree that people like Stokes and Packer have more than they need. What about the rest of us? We take more than we need to. Is the expectation of quality housing, reliable transport... in fact, the hugely convenient priveleged lifestyles we lead, more than we need? If global equality is what we seek, then the answer is yes.

couldn't agree more, & think that ties in w/illegalbrain's last point

I definitely think people should have the right to basic shelter, but this might be something as simple as a flat or even a caravan, which are still comparitively luxurious compared to how much of the world lives.

there is an argument that says if all the worlds resources were equally shared then we'd all be driving round in rolls royces, or whatever. Certainly we could bring everyones living standard to a reasonable level, but what kind ov level is sustainable?

[ramon]

because although we could easily get finance and buy a nice house, we don't want to get tied down and end up paying three times the value of the house.

by the time you have finished paying three times the value of the house. It should have appreciated around factor of six .

leaving you 3 times the value of the house better off.

Also don't pay three times the value of the house if you have a mortage you can pay off quickly.

[ramon]

couldn't agree more, & think that ties in w/illegalbrain's last point

there is an argument that says if all the worlds resources were equally shared then we'd all be driving round in rolls royces, or whatever. Certainly we could bring everyones living standard to a reasonable level, but what kind ov level is sustainable?

The last I heard, quite some time ago it required 17 acres of land to account for all resources used by aus comsumers.

So if land was shared equally I am sure we would each get much less the 17 acres so theoretically we would have a much poorer lifestyle.

Edited April 13, 2007 by ramon

[Rev]

we are supposedly in the best times economically we have ever been in

yet we are in the most debt we have ever been

so what happens when the bubble bursts?

if you want to rock the system i think you have to reduce your debt

while reducing liabilities and costs also

much much harder than 5 years ago now

5 years ago you could buy a house in a nice part of the country for a relative pittance - or even Perth, Hobart or Adelaide

now you cant. its very much harder

but still worth doing

save save save

reject anything you cant afford, plow every dollar you have into reducing debt and reducing reliance on rented/hired goods

because you willlook back at now when times are tough

and kick yourself for wasting all that money you had free on shit you didnt need

being free is tied to having basic needs met, but being debt free

it really costs SFA to live if all you need to do is pay bills based n your rate of consumption

that is you can physically labour to meet those aims and still have time left in your day

and not being tied to the millstone is my ticket to being able to go on in a few years and do the traveling and exploration i always wanted to, but couldnt cos i knew i didnt have a pot to piss in when i came home.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Azz, did u mean to shoot u a Prime Minister or a Personal msg lol ?

Seriously tho, Its hard to get out of the "system" of debt especially since our society almost "forces" us upon it in many ways. i also agree that alot of it can be called into the greed factor, people want more then they can have like IB said. That said, BANKS are the main culprits is building this sort of society.

The way out? i donno, i can think of a few things but their all be considered "terroristic\anti social(unacceptable) protests" by media n law.

The last I heard, quite some time ago it required 17 acres of land to account for all resources used by aus comsumers.

So if land was shared equally I am sure we would each get much less the 17 acres so theoretically we would have a much poorer lifestyle.

Im not sure if i interpreted that post right, but do u mean if every australian had even 1 acre of land weld end up poorer? if so thats weird, coz i dont even own 1 square meter of land. correct me if i misinterpreted.

[DocAzz]

I meant shoot me a PM lol

Lets just say, for arguements sake, that every natural resource Australia has was owned by all Australians, and that profits from it should go directly to the public.

What are the implications of that? Take a look at BHP alone. For 2005/2006 they pulled in a record profit of almost $14 billlion!

What if there was a levy on every tonne of ore that came out of the ground?

How much tax do you think we'd be paying?

Not only would we not be paying tax, but from BHP alone, the whole country would be millionaires... we could have world-leading infrastructure/health-care/education etc etc Remember, this is just BHP alone... they aren't the only ones using our natural resources.

Why doesn't this happen? They figure "donating" to a few politicians, and their campaigns, is better than giving to the whole country. The politicians are focused on immediate gain rather than working for their country. We work for them, not the other way around. Not the way it should be.

What if the only companies allowed to use our natural resources were state-owned?

Russia does this with their natural gas, with which they supply most of europe, through the state-owned Gazprom. The problem in Russia is corruption further down the line.

Don't you think that our own resources are rightfully ours?

[Jesus On Peyote]

Wonderfully put.

I dont know how the US would like that, sounds like a form of Utopian communism or socialism, which aint really a bad thing in my view.

I dont know much about economics but i cant see why a system like that wouldent work, but corruption is not only in russia, for the sheer fact that we dont live like that is corruption in itself from all companies.

This is capitalism, what our four fathers died for.

Don't you think that our own resources are rightfully ours?

Indeed i do, But try tell that to the people that are robbing us of it and those in charge that are letting it happen.

But again, im blank at what to do about it.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote

[komodo]

Not only would we not be paying tax, but from BHP alone, the whole country would be millionaires...

get rich from wholesale industrial exploitation of nature?

in terms of those kind of export profits being distributed fairly, recall that economics is a global system, many inputs into the australian economy are outputs from other countries (i'm sure this is true of BHP, a major exporter). so therefore if we redistribute money fairly and globally we in oz would be a lot poorer. incidentally i think this is the way to go for first-world people; make less money, have less stuff. to cash in now while the economy is booming means to get as much of the dirty resources exploitation profits you can, be they trickled down or direct from the stockmarket source.

the capitalist idea that we can all create wealth and make ourselves happy with material products has been a failure, its humanity is bankrupt and the influence on the ecosystem is toxic. for all australians, let alone everyone on the planet, to live at this hyperinflated level of consumption is science fiction in this era of overpopulation, conflict, developing nations, environmental degradation and the hegemony of competition.

we need to think outside the square here. the economy is abstract, a contrived game for the exchange of power and resources, it involves putting one persons wants and needs over another according to how many points theyve got. you use these points to get other people to do things for you, thats all theyre good for. however, through the mechanisms of human use value-adding and consumption, the excess of wealth leaves a very real footprint, be it a boot stamping on a human face or a patch of wasteland, or both.

solutions? rich get much poorer, poor get a bit richer, once we're all even we can abandon nationalism and work together for that science fiction future of infinite clean energy, nanoassembly and universal information. pass me that pipe...

Edited April 14, 2007 by komodo

[DocAzz]

Not only would we not be paying tax, but from BHP alone, the whole country would be millionaires...

get rich from wholesale industrial exploitation of nature? no thanks.

Based on the fact that it will be coming out of the ground regardless, you'd obviously rather the profits staying with BHP by the sounds of that comment!

in terms of those kind of export profits being distributed fairly, recall that economics is a global system, many inputs into the australian economy are outputs from other countries (i'm sure this is true of BHP, a major exporter). so therefore if we redistribute money fairly and globally we in oz would be a lot poorer. incidentally i think this is the way to go for first-world people; make less money, have less stuff. to say that we should all be cashing in now while the economy is booming means to get as much of the dirty resources exploitation profits you can, trickled down or direct from the stockmarket source.

How do you figure thats a fair way to do it? I say, its in our country, therefore it belongs to everyone in the country. That aside, I really don't follow how you concluded that we'd be poorer selling our product? It will be leaving the country via exactly the same means as it currently does, but instead of the profits going to a select few group of people, it will go to the entire country.

I think if you read what I wrote, you'll find that I was using BHP to illustrate a point, and not suggesting that we merely piggy-back them. I'm saying we're a naturally rich country, but not a rich people. Use any example of a third world country, and how lucky we are already - It is their sovereign right to rule their country anyway they see fit. If they can't figure it out for themselves, that is essentially tough luck until the time comes when we can fix our own problems, rather than instantly looking abroad for a problem we, ultimately, have no influence over whatsoever! I agree the state that Tibet is in is attrocious, but China is the next world superpower - there isn't one goddamn thing we can do to change what they want.

the capitalist idea that we can all create wealth and make ourselves happy with material products has been a failure, its humanity is bankrupt and the influence on the ecosystem is toxic. for all australians, let alone everyone on the planet, to live at this hyperinflated level of consumption is science fiction in this era of overpopulation, conflict, developing nations, environmental degradation and dirty energy.

Who said I was a capitalist? Since when was sharing the wealth among the people called capitalism?

I agree that alot of work needs to be done - If I had my way, there would be a goverment supplied solar panel on every roof and that is just one example. It just shits me when people look overseas for problems to solve (or tell themselves they can help solve) when we have our own shit on our plate that we CAN actually help to fix! Thinking globally is just a tool used by the governments to take focus off the stunts their pulling right under our noses. Anytime they point overseas, they're really saying "don't look here." Its a sleight-of-hand trick that magicians have been using for centuries - they direct your attention away from what they're really doing.

[komodo]

Based on the fact that it will be coming out of the ground regardless, you'd obviously rather the profits staying with BHP

if youre saying i should be more realistic; nationalising the resources sector wouldnt even get a glimpse through the back door of australian politics. i assumed it was open thinking, in which case it wouldnt be coming out of the ground regardless because we could have an ecologically sound society here (perhaps more plausible than a nationalised-industry society).

I say, its in our country, therefore it belongs to everyone in the country.

who do you mean when you say "our"? i don't think being commonwealth of australia passport-holders means we have rights to exploit this ancient landscape to win more prizes in the global economic game, and nor does being born here. also, how do you know which country youre in? people have different maps, with different names. personally i dont think the queens maps and names are worth much, theyre basically instruments used to overwrite an existing culture of flora/fauna/humanity so that the landscape could be exploited by europeans.

If they can't figure it out for themselves, that is essentially tough luck

this assumes that nations are independant economic bodies with no interference or encumbrance from other nations. geopolitics is crucial in terms of wealth, as is the entire global history of invasion and conquest, repression, genocide, etc. not to mention the current global economic scenario, from the IMF and world bank down to tarriffs and subsidies, trade deals and foreign debt. the idea that poor countries somehow deserve to be poor and rich countries somehow deserve to be rich is just plain wrong. all of us individual people are sharing the same little planet, to pit 'our gang' against 'their gang' is outdated and harmful.

Who said I was a capitalist?

not me, was talking about capitalism because it was on topic and part of the discussion, not pointing fingers.

Thinking globally is just a tool used by the governments

if that was true they'd be putting themselves out of a job! i think the opposite is. listen to howard ranting on about national security, australian jobs and the australian economy, being unaustralian, etc etc. governments like ours are totally nationalistic, to hell with the rest of the planet, thats the whole problem with them.

times have changed, humanity is now a one-world operation. the australian nation/company, like most governments, is living in denial of the one-world reality, instead they continue fighting it out for economic points to win votes from a consumptive population.

Edited April 14, 2007 by komodo

[ENtiTY]

We have the right to live, the right to hope and the right to dream.

Fuck the man if his rules get in the way of these I say!

That being said we have a responsibility to our loved ones. So fucking the man isn't always easy or right. Not because he says so though.

[ThunderIdeal]

[ramon]

The last I heard, quite some time ago it required 17 acres of land to account for all resources used by aus comsumers.

So if land was shared equally I am sure we would each get much less the 17 acres so theoretically we would have a much poorer lifestyle.

Im not sure if i interpreted that post right, but do u mean if every australian had even 1 acre of land weld end up poorer? if so thats weird, coz i dont even own 1 square meter of land. correct me if i misinterpreted.

Essentially I am saying that if every Australian owned 1 acre of land we would have a much poorer lifestyle if we tried to enforce sustainability worldwide

Because it takes 17 acres of land to generate the resources that we Australians are using up.

It was previously suggested that if the world land was divided equally up we would all be driving around in Rolls Royce. Well if all the land was didvided up we would each get

1/48th of square Km according to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density

By my calculations 1 square Km = 250 acres

250/48 = 5.2 acres each so we would have to use about 1/3 of the resources we are using now to live sustainably.

This doesn't even take into account that much of this land would be non arable.

If only using arable land the figures would be

1/209 th square KM each of just under 2 acres.

Less then 1/8 of what we are using up now.

Don't

t take my figures as gospel as I am quite sleep deprived at the moment.

[The Dude]

Essentially I am saying that if every Australian owned 1 acre of land we would have a much poorer lifestyle if we tried to enforce sustainability worldwide

Because it takes 17 acres of land to generate the resources that we Australians are using up.

It was previously suggested that if the world land was divided equally up we would all be driving around in Rolls Royce. Well if all the land was didvided up we would each get

1/48th of square Km according to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density

By my calculations 1 square Km = 250 acres

250/48 = 5.2 acres each so we would have to use about 1/3 of the resources we are using now to live sustainably.

This doesn't even take into account that much of this land would be non arable.

If only using arable land the figures would be

1/209 th square KM each of just under 2 acres.

Less then 1/8 of what we are using up now.

Don't

t take my figures as gospel as I am quite sleep deprived at the moment.

sure we would be worse off going by the standard of our current consumption, no doubt an average ranging from the lowest to highest consuming peoples of our country. We overuse resources, which get wasted often, such as food going to waste. The trick is to live a much more resource efficient lifestyle. Now I think if you consider the high resource consumers that have a 'right' to live comfortably, realising just HOW comfortable this level is, we'd appreciate that as simple Over-indulgence, we don''t need a whole 17acres each. and really we should do this whole.. pure altrusim thing soon, if we want any reward form... the ineffable name, haha. hmm getting all religious here, but i'd say the splitting of our collective body into seperate warring factions obviously leaves its karmic debt, goddamn ancestors passing the burden... blame shifting is another thing to avoid ;). learn to appreciate your pain as allowing the possibility of pleasure gained after resolution. I'm talking our global pain here, if it werent for our disconnection there'd be no joy of reclaiming our original state.

Old tool track got me thinking, life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life... and so it goes. it is the nature of any organism in the universe to consume another life, process it into energy and discard the waste. Nature usually developes really efficient biological methods of energy transfer via.. enzymes and stuff. We it seems need to burn everything and make that boil water which then turn turbines which are hooked up to a generator which converts the kinetic into electric energy. Each step reducing the efficiency. we're just really bad at resource use and management... Plus we're greedy, dunno where im going with this... ah yes.

resource management is key if we're to live here with mum all our lives, still i think this body is soon to come of age, can we not now shoot our seed into other beautiful godesses of planets? i mean sure we must be humbled by and appreciative of all that mother has given us, still it is time to move on, especially at this age, we'd need more resources if we're to keep expanding as we are, so the obvious option is to move out and become self reliant, It seems kids rarely know when they're becoming a burden on their olds, as always with this kind of decision its a simply a matter of how.

/end rant

Edited April 20, 2007 by El Duderino

[nabraxas]

It was previously suggested that if the world land was divided equally up we would all be driving around in Rolls Royce. Well if all the land was didvided up we would each get

actually what i said was that if the world's resources were divided up equally.

[Kenny Blister]

I hear what you're saying Azz. Anarcho-syndicalism in a way, sharing profits fairly between workers and money also going to community infrastructure - education, health etc. Already in practice in parts of the world. See 'Mondragon'.