Fair enough, I apologise.

In return, please don't use false associations with loaded terms such a any-ism, which brought me to believe that you haven't studied.


I dont' really understand the question, but I guess the direction we propose is Dynamic equilibrium with the planet.


We are not discussing all the realm of ethics. Just the basics: do we agree that we want the survival of the species on the planet and that we want to ensure the well being of all the people? That's what we are talking about.


As I said, it's a difficult issue, I don't know what if not, we'll have to discuss it. In any case, why not trying education, first?

And again, what is your proposal?


No, it's the basis for that. As I said a million times, you have to change the values before you change the system. First, people need to understand that their desires need to take into account what's actually possible in the real world, and that wanting a 500-rooms mansion in unsustainable, and that many people will suffer because of that.


Greatly reduced, through education and a change of values. The same way we now consider horrible owning slaves. We evolve our culture.


As opposed to "everything is for the good a a very small elite that can impose its power on the rest of the starving population"?


I addressed the fallacy of Friedman's arguments in the post below, I didn't just pick on him.

Anyway, here's a very clear rebuttal that explains why the free market proponents get it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw


... and they are a product of the profit-based market system, whether it is free, partly free, or socialist. The underlying mechanism doesn't change. See the video posted above.


If, by State, you mean the people directly, according to what they really need and what can be scientifically accomplished, yes.

If by State, you mean what we have now, a big and loud no.


That's good to hear.


I advocate a way for the species to survive, without destroying the planet's resources and without forced slavery for billions of people.

What do you advocate, and how's the "free market" going to solve that?


So, it doesn't matter if we destroy the planet from which the depend in the process? And what is social justice? the richest 1% controlling 40% of resources is social justice? Billions of people starving to death is social justice? How's this "long term thinking" going to prevent that?


Again, the question is sustainability. How's that addressing the issue?

+1

+1. When we say that labour will be reduced, we talk about jobs that don't produce anything useful for society. And by having the necessities provided automatically (technically possible, really, if you look into it) the only jobs that remain are the ones that you would like to do, not the ones that you are forced to, otherwise you die.

+1.


For morality, that's fine. But what you need to survive is not an opinion, it's a scientific fact, and the market system is not designed to provide what's needed for the survival, you have to fight for it at the expenses of others. A cruel game of musical chairs, where the poor and the weak always loose.


W-w-whaaat? o_O

Why?


Again, that doesn't address the problem of sustainability, which is the number one priority.

We can discuss all day about exchange rates, capital investments, Stste intervention, free market and the like, until we end up in a time where there is no more a planet to host our philosophical discussions.