BEAR on 24/11/2007 at 18:01
I think SE is just more pissed in general with our priorities. While its hard to get overly worked up over this incidence in itself, it is frustrating to know what kind of a world we could make if people were capable of really coming together.
The problem with is that people are just being people, its impossible for them to do anything else, so it doesnt really do anything to get worked up about it.
Papy on 24/11/2007 at 20:44
Quote Posted by BEAR
it is frustrating to know what kind of a world we could make if people were capable of really coming together.
Before agriculture, human population was about 50 million individuals (estimation varies greatly between different sources). Surviving was hard and the lack of resources was the cause of constant conflicts between tribes.
Then came agriculture and other production techniques. The result could have been to make life a lot easier, but instead human population suddenly jumped to 500 million individuals and, as a consequence, life was still hard and the continuing lack of resources was the cause of major conflicts.
Since the industrial revolution and with developments in science, the availability of resources grew exponentially, but the result was not a greater availability of resource for all individuals, but really an exponential growth of human population, and, because of that, resources are still a problem.
The truth is no matter how much resources we devote to make the world a better place, we will never be able to do it. We can solve one problem, but that problem solved will create another one. There is no solution. Even things like finding a cure for cancer is rather pointless from a global point of view because no matter what, people will die one way or the other. Life was and still is a competition, with winners and losers, and death is inevitable.
As we can't solve the big picture, this leaves us with only one possible goal in life : simply to be happy for the short moment we live. Having a big screen TV or a nice car, having children or other forms of social interaction with people, devoting time to one cause based on our personal values or... caring for a pet are different ways we can be happy.
If someone's way to be happy is to give to homeless people, then I can understand why this person feels frustration when other people gives their time and money to something else he don't value. After all, giving directly or convincing someone else to give lead to the same result. And this is to me what this is about. It is not really about making the world a better place from a global point of view, but about convincing people to do what will bring us our own happiness. Of course, we all like to believe that what makes us happy is somehow THE path to follow, the morally superior thing to do, but this is utter bullshit. I'll certainly be the first one to claim that too many people waste too much money the wrong way, that the world could be much better if they spent their money the way I want, but I also know I'm just playing a game, I'm just trying to shape the world in a way that please ME. Is anyone different?
Zygoptera on 24/11/2007 at 21:29
Quote Posted by fett
It's a 'short-haired domestic cat' (read: Siamese) named "Baby."
Short-haired domestic is the technical term for a bog standard non-pedigree cat.
Malygris on 24/11/2007 at 21:38
Quote Posted by fett
It's a 'short-haired domestic cat' (read: Siamese) named "Baby." That should tell you all you need to know about the owner.
I have a cat named Baby. I'm curious what that tells you about me.
BEAR on 24/11/2007 at 21:38
Quote Posted by Papy
things
I agree with you for the most part, but humans differ from the rest of life on earth in that we do have the ability to understand a problem and fix it - we wont but it wouldnt be impossible, it just wont ever happen ever.
Quote Posted by BEAR
it doesnt really do anything to get worked up about it.
jay pettitt on 24/11/2007 at 21:51
God, it's all doom and gloom with you lot. Cheer the fuck up. Now. :mad:
gah - page 2 again :(
Papy on 25/11/2007 at 08:57
Quote Posted by BEAR
I agree with you for the most part, but humans differ from the rest of life on earth in that we do have the ability to understand a problem and fix it - we wont but it wouldnt be impossible, it just wont ever happen ever.
Most other animals also do have the ability to understand a problem and fix it. No food in bowl (problem), cat jump on bed of food provider to wake him up and show some affection to food provider until food provider is pleased and put food in the bowl (which is certainly a proof a simple cat is able to learn new and far more efficient ways to "hunt" for food, and so solve the problem of limited resources availability).
Humans have of course much better cognitive abilities which allow (some of) us to solve far more complex problems than simply getting immediate food, but the difference is not in the nature of the ability itself, it is only in the complexity level of the solutions that can be found. For a cat, the best solution to overpopulation and lack of resources, is simply to use basic communication skills and some physical force if communication fails. On the other hand, humans are able to find much more elaborate solutions (like using a nice 15,000 pound bomb on the pretentious assholes who don't give us their resources fast enough).
Sarcasms aside, I'd like to know... what do you think we could do to make the world a good place for all of us at the same time? Personally, I can't think of any solution. Not a single one.
jay pettitt : Sorry, but I am a grumpy and disillusioned old man who has lost most of its hopes in life... And the only way I can find some happiness is by making other people suffer as much as me. I won't cheer up. :ebil:
Swiss Mercenary on 25/11/2007 at 16:54
Quote Posted by Papy
Sarcasms aside, I'd like to know... what do you think we could do to make the world a good place for all of us at the same time? Personally, I can't think of any solution. Not a single one.
Have fewer kids. That goes for all of us.
SubJeff on 26/11/2007 at 01:02
Let me tell you now that the person paying for this cat's operations is also likely to expect the same operation for herself without paying anything at all in this country. Yes, she may pay national insurance, but it's the expectation that personal healthcare should be free at the point of delivery in this country (the UK) yet you know that these cat operations are going to have cost into the thousands of pounds and possibly 10s of thousands. It's just the priority I have an issue with, as BEAR says.
And Papy, I'm not comparing your cat's health with neighbor's kid's entertainment at all.
That Blue Cross thing is sick though. Seriously, an animal charity? There are people dying out there ffs. Though the kitten on the homepage is awwww.
