Ignorant people

Hello I am almost 20 and I really hate it when there is a lot of ignorant people out there in this world like when they say that we should not have or we cannot have some free events and other free things including like food, water and more others for all ages when they should not even say that at all as it is wrong, unfair, makes me more angry, discrimination based on age and also when nobody is ever too old to have everything for free so I just really want for people's bad attitude there to also stop as they should be happy that some things are free and should be for everyone regardless of age and other factors.

Parents
  • I'm very confused here , you have voted 'up' each of our comments despite them not necessarily being in agreement with your original point!? Or have I wildly misunderstood your original point? I feel dizzy ... 

  • Oh sorry I made a mistake as I do hate it when people do not seem to agree with me on something like that.

  • I think disagreement should be the basis of further discussion - not hatred.  I get disconcerted if my own opinions are challenged - but I'm always prepared to listen to what the other person has to say.  Sometimes, I even end up changing or moderating my own beliefs as a consequence. 

    Food, water and shelter are basic essentials of life, yes - as per Maslow's hierarchy of needs - but that still doesn't mean they need to be free.  Food can be intensely costly to produce.  Houses need to be built, by people who are paid to build them, using materials that have to be produced by people paid to produce them.  If they were then simply given away - how are the builders and producers to be paid for their labour and materials?

    Ideally, of course, everything would be free.  But then people wouldn't have any incentive to work to produce the stuff.  I like the idea of self-sufficiency - being able to build my own shelter, grow my own food, etc.  Such things can be done very cheaply.  It's actually remarkable, once you pare things down to our basic needs, how little an income we would all need.  I live on what is assessed (in our society) as a 'below-the-poverty-line' income.  Yet I'm not impoverished, financially or spiritually, because I don't need much money to live on.  I'm happy with a frugal, basic life.  But not everyone wants to live on survival incomes (unfortunately).  It's a deeply unfair world, too, with the way wealth is distributed, and with people starving when there is food enough.  But making things like water, food and shelter free... well... maybe you could explain how that might work, taking everything into account.

  • Why do you never answer my question?

  • Do you really come here just to troll people?

  • Do you really believe everything printed in the Economist?!

  • There was something in The Economist a few years back and it basically said that self sufficiency only works up to a certain level of technological advancement, because once you pass a certain point you need an ever increasing number of specialists who have to work entirely on their specific task.

    To maintain self sufficiency long term we're effectively back to a stone age level of existence and even then there were some who had "more" than others, usually the hunters and warriors. 

    In terms of the current UK or global population we're well beyond what could be sustained with self sufficiency, we need the economics and efficiency of global industrial agriculture to sustain the world population, the yield drop in moving away from fertilisers and pesticides and from industrial meat production would mean that a large proportion of the global population would starve. 

  • I agree with Former Member, it would be an interesting discussion about how self-sufficiency would work on a grand scale.

    I'd also like to know who the "ignorant people" are, because I think both sides of the debate could be given quite intelligently. There are many sources of information out there to ensure that neither side would need to be ignorant of either their own perspective or, indeed, the opposing one.  

Reply
  • I agree with Former Member, it would be an interesting discussion about how self-sufficiency would work on a grand scale.

    I'd also like to know who the "ignorant people" are, because I think both sides of the debate could be given quite intelligently. There are many sources of information out there to ensure that neither side would need to be ignorant of either their own perspective or, indeed, the opposing one.  

Children
  • Why do you never answer my question?

  • Do you really come here just to troll people?

  • Do you really believe everything printed in the Economist?!

  • There was something in The Economist a few years back and it basically said that self sufficiency only works up to a certain level of technological advancement, because once you pass a certain point you need an ever increasing number of specialists who have to work entirely on their specific task.

    To maintain self sufficiency long term we're effectively back to a stone age level of existence and even then there were some who had "more" than others, usually the hunters and warriors. 

    In terms of the current UK or global population we're well beyond what could be sustained with self sufficiency, we need the economics and efficiency of global industrial agriculture to sustain the world population, the yield drop in moving away from fertilisers and pesticides and from industrial meat production would mean that a large proportion of the global population would starve.